## StrongMobile **AirCar Transport**  **System Development Project** 

**B**

**y Richard A**  **llen Strong,** 
**BSc Aero**  **& Astro Eng inee**  **r in**  **g , MA** 

**, PE**  **(Major, USAF, Retired) Commercial Pilot** 

**The author**

**- inventor is retired from**  **military and civil service**

**. The project has** 

**been in work**  **o ff and on for**  **over forty years as a personally** 

**- funded venture** 
**and adventure**

**. The work**  **is develop ing**  **an aircar system** 

**that can carry people safely and easily** 
**from door**

**- to** 

**- door on**  **frequent medium** 

**** **range trips, such as routine**  **regional**
**business travel. The go**  **al is development**

**and use of an aircar system, called the** 
**Stron gMobile AirCar Transport System** 

**. The current StrongMobile design is**  **called the “Magic Dragon”.**

**Long**

**- range planning is to achieve**  **high production rates**  **for lower unit**

**costs , as compared to airp**  **lanes . This**  **may lead to thousands**  **of operators avoiding**  **millions of hours of wasted**  **‘windshield time’ on the highways or changing modes. This time**  **c ould be**  **used for more profitable activities, such**

**as expanding the business region** 

**. You**  **may expect to see a**  **billion**

**- dollar**  **industry within a decade from start**

**- up.** 

**The Magic Dragon design is o**  **f a single** 

**** **unit vehicle that can be operated either as an automobile or as an airplane, with** 
**automatic ‘push** 

**- button’**  **transformation**

**, just**  **like magic. The**  **design is**  **more complex than a car**  **or a plane, but**  **it’s**
**much simpler than a car**  **and a plane.** 

**Des igns trade capacity for utility;**  **the weight and space of car passengers is traded for airplane parts and vice** 

**versa**

**. Magic Dragons will have a pay** 

**** **load of a**  **driver**

**- pilot and**  **e ither**  **one**
**p assenger**  **(overleaf) or**  **three**

**p assengers**  **and baggage**

**, or an equal** 

**amount of cargo**  **or equipment** 

**. Flight performance is estimated**  **to compare favorably with current lightplanes, on a door** 

**- to** 

**- door basis** 

**, achieving speeds of twice**  **high way**  **speeds and v irtually paying for itself** 

**.**

**Structural design combines the**
**best of off**

**- the** 

**- shelf automotive parts,** 
**such as the chassis,**  **wheels , steering,**  **and suspension, with**  **aircraft materials for the body and flight surfaces.** 

**The Magic Dragon will use a**  **single aircraf**  **t or automobile engine. The road drive design**  **may use a**  **driveshaft from the engine**  **to a rear**

  ** wheel** **automatic transaxle.** 

**The Magic Dragon design**  **has five unique and distinctive features:** 
**1. The four** 

**- wheeled, auto** 

**- style,**  **lifting body**

**- fuselage will provide**  **a**

**significant amount of lift in flight ;**  **2. While**  **transforming to road** 
**mode , t**  **he rear end streamlined**  **fairing will be flipped down to**  **show the license** 

**plate and lamps and act as a bumper; 3**  **. The ducted fan will**  **provide quieter**  **thrust for flight** 

**. The fan**  **j et**  **will**
**blow on to**  **the wing root**  **to boost the lift.**
**While transforming**  **to road mode**

**, g**  **ear ing**  **will disconnect the**  **fan ;**  **4 . The wings have**  **Warp Action Spoiler Plate, “WASP”** 

**, ailerons for**  **coordinated turning and full** 

**- span slotted**  **flaps and**  **slats for more safet**  **y and lift ;**  **5**

**. W**  **h ile**  **transforming to road** 
**mode , t**  **he wing will**  **fold the tips and**  **swing into the body**  **stowage bay** 

**. T** 

**he horizontal tail tips also fold**
**down to fit within the allowed width** 

**.**

**Some of the features were patented (USP 2923494 and 3612440). A wi**  **nd**

  ** tunnel (Cal Tech Guggenheim) model**
**and tether model were built and tested.**
**A half**

**- scale mockup was built and**  **shown to the public. A full**

**- size mockup**  **was then built, for refining dimensions and showing to the public.**  **It was**
**exhibited at the EAA AirVent ure 2005.** 

**The inventor is surveying customer**  **Performance, Equipment, and Price**

**, ‘PEP’** 

**, desire**  **s, via The AirCar Research**  **Association, “TACRA” , an Ohio non** 

**** **profit**

**. If**  **survey response is**  **favorable**

**, then a prototype**  **may be designed and** 

**built . If the prototyp**  **e testing shows promise, then**  **plans and kits for building** 

**may be developed.**  **P roduction and**  **operation may be done by**  **teams of** 
**individuals or manufacturers.**

**More information is at:** 

## www.strongware.com **/dragon ===**  **=== ==============** 

### 0

SDR3 1



# The StrongMobile Flying Car Projec t

A Quick and Easy Solution for Regional Travel

AND

by



## R ichard A llen Strong , B.Sc., M.A.

( M ajor
, USAF, Retired )

### 1



## COPYRIGHT © 200 9 Richard Allen Strong

LCCN 73174897

TL718 .S74

ISBN 13: 978

- 0

- 615

- 15823

- 5



## Fifth Edition 200 9

Published by Safety Analysis Systems Co.
c/o Richard Allen Strong
7514 Belle Plain Drive Dayton OH 45424

- 3229

http://www.strongware.com/dragon

937

- 236

- 03 61

### 2



# The StrongMobile Flying Car Projec t

BY

RICHARD A. STRONG

( MAJOR, USAF, RETIRED)

### 3

The Future Belongs to Those Who Can See It

“ Dost thou love life? Then do not squander time, for that is the stuff life is made of ." Benjamin Franklin , Inventor

“ I Like the dreams of the future...better than the history of the past... “
Thomas Jefferson

"Do not go where the path may lead. Go where there is no path and leave a trail..." Ralph Waldo Emerson, Philosopher

" Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Arthur C. Clarke

"Mark my word: A combination airplane and motor car is comin g. You may smile, but it will come." Henry Ford

"At first, people refuse to believe that a strange new thing can be done, then they begin to hope it can be done, then they see it can be done

- then it is done, and all the world wonders why it took so long." Secret Garden, Frances Hodgson Burnett

“If you keep doing things the same way, then why do you expect different results?.”
Albert Einstein

"If you don't have a consensus that it is nonsense, you don't have a breakthrough." Burt Rutan, Scaled Composites

"When you design your aircraft, distort the specifications to be different!“ Prof. Ed Lesher, University of Michigan, Speed Record Engineer

- Builder

- Pilot

“The greatest obstacle to scientific progress is the illusion of complete knowledge.” Prof. Disney, Hubble Telescope Committee

" Those who say it cannot be done, should not interrupt the person who is doing it. ”


### Chinese Proverb

Doc Brown says to Marty at the end of Back to the Future : "Roads? Where we're going, we don't need roads."

### 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page Chapter and Contents

1 1: Introduction

3 2: Background

5 3 : A V ision of the Future

9 4: A Typical Operation

1 2 5: Business Model for Research and Full

- Scale Production

14 6: The History of the StrongMobile Project

20 7: The StrongMob ile Aircar Development Project

2 1 8: Preliminary Design Overview

4 2 9: Preliminary Engineering Calcula tions

54 10: Full

- Scale Mock

- Up Model

5 9 11: Propulsion Test Plan

61 12: Safety, Risk Management, and Legal Aspects

6 5 13: Spreading the Good News about StrongMobiles

6 8 14: TACRA Charter and Survey

73 About the Author

Compact Disk or Website Contents:

Excel Master Plan Spreadsheet with Mass Properties and Fan Design , “ss1.xls”

PowerPoi n t Presentation
, “ dragonpp.ppt ”

“ Movie 3 .wmv ”

Access database “db1.mdb”

### 1

Chapter 1: Introduction

You may have seen flying cars in the popular media that shows them as science fiction or cartoons or, worse yet, as real

- world failures and so you may feel that they are something that will never happen. You may be pleasantly surprised to see, in this book , a preliminary design study that may lead to production and operation of thousands of practical flyable

automobiles in the near future. The design is called the StrongMobile 'Magic Dragon'.

The problem to be solved recognizes that there are hundreds of cities that are hundreds of miles apart, so many travelers want to travel between and within them on a door

- to

- door basis without changing vehicles, with time to do some business and return hom e, all with in a single day. The problem may be solved with a system that melds the best capabilities of road and air travel, called t he StrongMobile AirCar Transport System, SMACTS

.

SMACTS is intended initially for frequent, regional VIP business travel t hat's expected to be quicker, quieter, more cost

- effective, more convenient, and safer with more freedom and less hassle than other current systems. The SMACTS is based upon the StrongMobile Magic Dragon as the vehicle subsystem that could fit into the exi sting and forecast combined aeronautical and highway systems. The business travel market is expected to be feasible because the users can offset much of the cost of the vehicle by avoiding wasting time and related personnel costs, as contrasted to only dr iving automobiles. Furthermore, users may expand their operating territories by flying.

The inventor‟s b ackground as : an aircraft mechanic; an automaker worker; a military pilot and system safety engineer aided in the development. The preliminary studies have

been personally

- funded for decades. Currently, the inventor is operating from the home office near Dayton, Ohio, near the Wright

- Patterson Air Force Base, where he worked for over twenty years in engineering, flight testing, and laboratory research. The StrongMobile vehicle designs have been under study and development for over half a century. They are considered to be ready for full scale development

.

You should note that the basic patents have long since expired and that all of the

information on th e website is in the public domain

. However, there is much more that is not
included

. One pertinent comment, about patents and intellectual property ; a lthough it may seem questionable, the inventor looks at it this way. He has published most of the change s to his last patent on the web and in professional publications, such as an SAE paper, to make sure the invention is in the public domain so that the changes cannot be patented by anyone else and so block progress. He realizes that investors would prefer to have exclusivity; however, he feels that it's more important for many to compete on the basis of merit, rather than assuring one party large profits. So, anyone may feel free to use any of the features that he has published, with attribution to www.stro ngware.com

.

### 2

The main purpose of the Dragon aircar is to provide a single vehicle for personal and

business door

- to

- door transportation. In addition, the recreational value as a sport vehicle is appealing to many of us. The underlying theme of the aircar is to trade off the high cruise speed of the fast small aircraft for quicker and more convenient trips by reducing the time lost in changing from automobile to airplane and vice versa. Likewise, the aircar design trades off the typical automobil e's capacity for airplane components.

A typical round

- trip day trip with a radius of 240 miles to destination is figured to take the same time via Dragon aircar cruising at 140 knots as with a 200 knot airplane or 400 knot airliner, due to the time saving s for conversion from road to air and vice versa. For a comparison with driving six days a week for a maximum usage, using an aircar would save 4 hours per trip, times 300 trips = 1,200 hours per years. This allows for weekend recreational flying, maintena nce, and weather, assuming that the pilot is instrument rated. Assuming a load factor where 40% of the trips are by the pilot only and 60% include a passenger, for a factor of 1.6, this gives 1,920 hours per year. If one considers total wrap

around cost an d value of the users at about $ 10 0 per hour, the savings amount to about $ 192
, 0 00 per year as compared to driving. The $100 per hour cost includes items such as medical plan, workers compensation, retirement plan, and support functions. From this,

one should subtract maintenance such as engine overhaul , about $ 4 0,000, and the difference in fuel costs. One may assume a fuel cost of $ 3 per gallon for aviation fuel or premium automotive fuel, fuel burn rates of 2 gallons per hour while driving and 7

- 8 gall ons per hour for flying. This results in $ 6 per hour for driving and $ 3 0 per hour for flying. Fuel costs for driving would be 10 hours at $ 3 per hour, or $ 3 0. Fuels costs for flying would be 6 hours at $ 3 0 per hour, or $1 8 0. The difference would then be $ 1 5 0 per round trip. The annual cost difference would then be $1 5 0 times 300 trips, or $ 45 ,000. This would then result in a net savings of $ 1 07
, 0 00. The value of the time savings would quickly provide recouping the investment in acquiring an aircar , with i nterest, in about two years.

The underlying benefit of business opportunities should also be considered. The aircar may replace an automobile to a large degree, saving on that car expense. The ultimate benefits that the aircar provides are : an increased radius of travel for business; or shorter workdays to provide more personal quality time; or more time for vacation travel. You can figure the times for your trips and see how much time you would save if you used an aircar instead of driving your automobile. You can work out the cost comparisons for an aircar versus a combination of a car and a plane. The pure recreational benefits of using an aircar for getaways on weekends and vacations are a bonus.

Development and production of the "Magic Dragon" aircar is considered to be a viable enterprise that would satisfy a niche market and provide a profitable venture for an extensive period of time

. USA Today's Gary Stoller writes: *Flying Their Own Planes
Saves Time to show examples of business people using their airplanes. Ultimately, this may involve several thousands of aircars in use within several years.

### 3

Chapter 2: Background

The problem to be solved recognizes that there are hundreds of cities that are hundreds of miles apart, and many business travelers want to go between them quickly and easily on a

door

- to

- door daily basis. Unfortunately, the highway system is forecast to be more congested and slower in the f uture, with no relief in sight. Air travellers still need to

convert from one mode to another and use rentals for local travel. However, many travelers may ease their problems by driving and flying their StrongMobiles; business travellers may avoid wasting time driving and converting and expand their territories. As progress continues in both the automotive and aviation fields, interest in vehicles that can be used in both areas continues. Automobiles are becoming lighter in weight and more efficient in pro pulsion. Airplanes are becoming easier to fly and more efficient.

While many travelers may be contented with driving their cars on short trips and using airliners for long trips, many others will feel that they are still lacking an efficient way of

travell ing routine medium trips. Many, if not most, pilots must be content with renting or leasing an airplane to fly and then renting a car at the destination. As one wag said it, "Airplanes can take you from a place where you don't want to be to another place w here you don't want to be. ” The high cost and inconvenience of owning and flying airplanes discourages potential airplane owners and pilots who would prefer to use an attractive, and practical aircar. Much of the inconvenience has been designed out of the Magic Dragon aircars, such as : dealin g with tie

- downs and handling wheel chocks ; using step

- stools to check fuel; using steps a nd handholds for entry and exit; only one cabin door; expense of hangaring; noisy
, too

- narro w cabins; steering while taxiing with f oo t pedals ; left and right brake pedals; tow bars and towing machines;

elaborat e engine and propeller displays and controls; potentially le thal prope ller; and need for rental cars for local transportation at destinations.

When l ooking at Simplify ing Obsolete Aviation Practices, "SOAP ” to cleanup messy chores", much of this inconvenience could be e asily eliminated

.

The highway system is equivalent to a modern Utopia where one size fits all, regardless of the individual requirements of travelers. Given the biological limits of humans, such as the need for rest stops and sleep, and the capabilities of available modes of transport, the distances to be traversed within those limits oftentimes simply do not permit reasonable travel. Many potentially va luable and desirable trips are simply not made at all , but many could be made with StrongMobile s

.

### 4

In the past, about a hundred different designs for "roadable airplanes" or "flying cars" have been patented; a few were built and operated. However, they req uired rather

awkward and time

- consuming ways to transform from car to plane and vice versa. Most of them left their wings and tail at the airport, while others dragged them below as trailers.

T he inventor defines an 'aircar' as a fully integrated airplane and automobile, with automatic powered transformation.

At a recent meeting of several aircar developers near Detroit, the consultant host, Alexander "Sandy" Munro, asked why they thought the time was ripe for aircars. The inventor replied that the availability of technology such as low

- cost , high power, lightweight, fuel

- efficient engines opened doors. (The Dragon inventor was gratified to hear Sandy remark, after viewing the various design presentations, that the Dragon was the only one that a ppeared to be crashworthy.)

The main objective is to provide maximum value to travelers , that is, production of units,

seat

- miles of travel; travel time avoided ; and enhanced qualities of life.

The Business Plan provides for bringing a new group of peo ple into aviation, rather than relying only on the traditional group. However, it should be noted that the automotive and aeronautical industries in the U.S.A. appear to be highly specialized nowadays and seem reluctant to engage in producing vehicles that require "cross

- over" technologies, such as aircars, due to regulatory restrictions and liability concerns. Of course, as a Professional Engineer specializing in System Safety, the inventor intends to comply with the regulations.
These are on the internet at Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Federal Aviation Regulations

. The FAA provides guidance at: *FAA

. Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are
at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/Cfc_title49/MotorVehicleSafety

- 2006.htm

.

The observation that traditional vehicle makers show such little interest in aircars may be a

bless ing in disguise, since it reduces the competition for the fresh start

- up business. Therefore, it's more likely that far

- sighted entrepreneurs will lead the production, particularly in foreign countries. A very thorough review of the flyable car scenario ma y be viewed at Lionel Salisbury's * Roadable Times website. Until such time as developers emerge, the main activity will continue to be concentrated on the 'grass roots' program. Responses to the TACRA survey may identify both potential kit builders and users and potential factory

- built Dragon buyers. The inventor recognizes the simple fact, based on the current indications, that the survey results may indicate a non

- zero probability of an empty set, that is, ther e may not be a viable market for aircars after all. IF such turns out to be the way things go, then the inventor will simply build and operate his own Dragon.

Thomas Kuhn wrote about the cultural change process in his book, * THE STRUCTURE
OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION , wherein he describes how people first reject a new idea (denial), then oppose change (delusion), and finally, when the idea succeeds, say that they knew all along that it was a good idea. One may assume that StrongMobiles will follow the

same process.

The *Synergy website contains an interes ting discussion of liability.

### 5

Chapter 3: A Vision of the Future

Although no developers have shown any interest yet, you may imagine being in the near future when they do mass

- produce kits or factory

- built StrongMobiles. The following story assumes that a real

- life miracle has occurred and a far

- sighted manufacturer ma kes
aircars. You can imagine there are many people who wouldn't think of climbing aboard a small airplane, but who would have no problem getting into an aircar that looks and feels like their own cars. Maybe you are an experienced private pilot, or maybe y ou tried the usual flying and gave it up due to the hassle and inconvenience, or, maybe
, you are a busy traveler and have been attracted to flying and driving instead of only driving all day and some nights.

You looked over the website and then got a dem o ride in a StrongMobile and then signed up as a launch customer when you compared your current business travel with the advantages of using a Dragon. You bought or leased a StrongMobile from your dealer or maybe it's in your organization's fleet. Maybe yo ur StrongMobile has a Commercial Off

The

- Shelf, COTS, chassis from your favorite car manufacturer, with purpose

- built airplane parts from your favorite airplane manufacturer.

Perhaps you and your team of a dozen or so Dragon Drivers have built your fleet of StrongMobiles from kits either at your team factory or at your regional StrongMobile factory or dealer with quick

- build set

- ups.

You have been trained in the systems and operations and gotten your check

- out.

You have also become used to the peopl e gawking at your 'flying car'.

Now you have the freedom to simply get into your StrongMobile at home or work and perform much of the pre

- flight in your 'hangarage' out of the weather, since it's less than twenty feet long and eight feet wide. You can lo ad your passenger and about 130 pounds of baggage or cargo or special purpose equipment. If you're travelling solo, you could flip up the right seat to provide unobstructed space to load an extra 195 pounds.

If you're operating the recently conceived four

- seat StrongMobile, then you can load up two more passengers and their baggage or you can remove or simply flip up the rear seats and load up their equivalent in cargo, about 50 0 pounds. You can drive with your companion or your cargo to your local ai rport or organizational airstrip or private road.

You feel right at home as you drive, with the familiar conventional automobile controls and feeling. You can do your engine checks as you drive and warm up the engine and cabin (or

cool it with the A ir C o nditioning S ystem, ACS ). You could file your flight plan via cell phone with FAA at home before you leave and check NOTAMs and TFRs

.

Many of the thousands of public

- use airports may be within ten to twenty miles of your home base; perhaps you have access to the many private or corporate airstrips.

### 6

You can forget about tie

- downs and tow machines and hangar fees and other nuisance paraphernalia like them. Likewise, you can by

- pass the parking lots
, airline terminal s , car rental, and the hassles they repr esent. You can refuel at an automotive service station with
automotive fuel

. http://www.aviationfuel.org/

When you arrive there, you can, like a magician, push the FLY button to transform your Magic Dragon into an airplane. You may hear the electrical ac tuators and motors humming and the solenoid locks as the wings spread, the tailplane spreads, and the rear bumper changes into a streamlined fairing in about one minute. If necessary, you stow the
front license.

You move the gearshift lever into Neutral, then over to the Fan position to engage the fan and notice the jet breeze coming from the outlet nozzles. You lower the rudder pedals, line up for take

- off, and move the upper half of the steering wheel so you have a clear view of

the instruments and cont rols.

The true power of the 'Magic' is that it not only transforms the aircar from automobile into airplane, but it also transforms the car driver into a pilot

- aviator.

You can then fly a few hundred miles in a few hours, extending your operating rang e far beyond the typical distance you could drive your car in the same time, about twice as far.

If you have the turbocharged versions of converted automobile engines and supplemental

oxygen , then you can cruise faster and higher.

You will probably use the FAA's Wide Area Augmentation System, WAAS, for navigation and approaches.

You might watch your Dragon's shadow passing the traffic on the highway below, especially when traffic is slowed down or stopped due to congestion, construction, accidents, or curves. Maybe there's no road at all below, if your home base or destination is beyond the shores on an island or peninsula or in the mountains.

You can plan your flight to bypass the congested airspace around jetliner hubs and

d ensely

- populated urban areas and maintain a course that provides for gliding to an emergency landing strip, should the engine quit from fuel exhaustion or failure

.

On a clear day, you may occasionally see another aircar within a mile of your position. You may be aware that you r flying is so quiet to those folks on the ground that they will not even notice your StrongMobile Dragon flying over them.

Instead of the typical airline bag of nuts, you can snack with your favorite foods and beverages in the privacy and comfort of you r StrongMobile

.

You could land at an airport near your destination, push the ROLL button to transform your Magic Dragon into automobile mode , and drive on to your business or recreation.

### 7

You can do face

- to

- face real

- time meetings or load and/or unload yo ur cargo, or attend events. Whenever you choose to, you could drive your Magic Dragon back to the airport (the same or a different one), transform it
, and fly to another d estination, or fly it back to your local airport, transform it
, and then drive it to your home or business.

Note that, in contrast to traditional transformations between car and plane, you can spend the time you saved during transformation in flying farther. As an example, if you spend a half hour in a traditional transformation and only ten minutes with your Magic Dragon (including refuelling), then you save a total of forty minutes and you can go 9 0 miles farther, at the same speeds.

Note that, for many trips, the Magic Dragon's cruise speed of 140 KTAS equates to a

traditional fast a irplane cruising at about 200 KTAS, on a door

- to

- door average speed
basi s including transformation time

.

The advantages of StrongMobile operation, with quick and easy transforming effort, become even more apparent for cases where visits to multiple desti nations are required, so

called 'round robins'. As an example, one may consider shorter trips of, say, two hundred miles, visiting two or three destinations in one day. Some users may want to routinely trade off the baggage capacity for fuel capacity so th ey could eliminate a refueling stop. There is space available in the optional 50

- gallon fuel tanks that could provide an extra 10 gallons
one or two hours for more endurance. For day trips with minimum baggage, the weight allowance may be used for king

- siz e pilot and passenger. Obviously, you could make an extended "Grand Tour" of several days or even weeks to many destinations. When the

work

- week is done, you could use it for week

- end recreational travel.

OR
, Maybe you would prefer to charter a trip and have someone else do the operating for you. You could simply call up your charter taxi service or corporate transportation office and make arrangements.

OR
, Maybe you have to move a few hundred pounds of urgent cargo a few hundred miles. The seats may be made to be removable and replaced with c ontainers for cargo.

Ditto for hiring a charter service with a chauffeur

- pilot.

OR
, Maybe you and your companions want to drive and fly your Dragon for the sheer enjoyment of dancing with the winds and enjoying the bird's

- eye views, as you expand your day

- trip n eighborhood beyond the airport gates to experience high flight in the wild blue yonder.

OR
, You can make local trips on the roads and highways, when it's more convenient to simply drive your Dragon.

OR, If the weather is really foul, you can simply drive your Dragon.

The “ other side of the coin ” also has drawbacks, as described in the Magic Drive r Ditty

.

### 8

The Dragon Driver Ditty

Sing to tune of "If you're happy and you know it, clap your hands "

Oh, there are no orange barrels in the sky,

You can leave them all be low you when you fly, There may be thunderstorms and ice, Otherwise, it's pretty nice, But there are no orange barrels in the sky.

There are no impaired drivers in the sky,

You can leave them all below you when you fly, Landing winds too strong and cross, Don't go there, avoid the loss,
But there are no im paired drivers in the sky,

There's no pot holes nor debris up in the sky,

You can leave them all below you when you fly, There are flocks of ducks and geese,

T hat can interrupt your peace, But there's no potholes nor debris up in the sky.

There are no congested highways in the sky,

You can leave them all below you when you fly, Sometimes congestion with ATC, Makes conversation too busy, but there are no congested highways in the sky.

There are no slow

- moving trucks up in the sky,

You can leave them all below you when you fly, There may be thunderheads with hail That can make your face turn pale,

But no slow

- moving trucks up in the sky.

There are no lakes or rivers in the sky, You can leave the bridge below you when you fly, There may be ceilings that are low, That make flying a real "No

- Go", But, there are no lakes or rivers in the sky.

There are no speed limit signs up in the sky,

You can leave them all below you when you fly, You can travel twice as fast, and burn up twice the gas, But, there are no speed limit signs up in the sky,

There are no refueling stations in the sky,
You will leave them all below you when you fly, So be sure supplies will last, When the headwinds burn your gas, „Cause there are no refueling stations in the sky.

### 9

Chapter 4: A Typical Operation

When people ask, "What will a Magic Dragon do for me?", the inventor's answer is in terms of the design specifications for making a medium

- range day trip. Annual utilization

is envisio ned as 1,000 flight hours, flying 20 hours on three days per week, plus monthly weekend vacation trips. The road mileage is estimated as a dozen or so twenty

- mile trips per week, for an annual mileage of about 12,000 miles. You can compare it to making an automobile trip in the same times covering less distance. Some operators might fly as much

as twice this.

The graphic shows cumulative minutes on the left abscissa and time on the x

- axis

.

The standard trip is defined as a one

- day 4 0 0

- mile radius combination of road and flight modes in a dozen phases: 1. [ 7:30] Pre

- planning in road mode and inspection at home; 2. [ 8:00] Drive to home airport; 3. [ 8:30] Transformation from road to flight mode (pre

- flight checks); 4. [ 8:35] Flig ht to destination; 5. [11:40] Transformation to road mode; 6. [11:45] Drive to final destination; 7. [12:15] (Lunch) Conduct business or recreation for a couple of hours; 8. [14:15] Drive to airport and refuel; 9. [14:50] Transformation to flight mode ; 10. [14:55] Flight to home airport; 11. [17:55] Transformation to road mode and refuel; and 12. [18:00] Drive to home by 18:30. ( Trip is based on 140 knots true/161 mph for about 420 nautical miles With an average wind at cruising altitude of 6,000 feet of about 20 knots, the actual groundspeed for a round trip would be about 155 mph, for a 30

- knot wind, GS would be 148 mph, and so on.)

Many trips that cannot be done within schedule and budget constraints with traditional

non
- aircar technology may be made easily with StrongMobiles.

### 10

W ith a StrongMobile, you can drive to the airport, take off, fly up to the edge of a weather system, land, drive to the other side of it, continue flight to his destination airport, and then
drive to his final destinatio n. Magic Dragon Drivers may use combination trips to have flexibility in selecting airports

. In general, you can plan your trip for various situations:
Plan A

- VFR or IFR direct without problems [probability of about 80%]; or

Plan B

- weather or TFR deviations of less than one hour [probability of about 15%]; or
Plan C

- deviations of more than one hour, but less than two hours [probability of 3%]; or

Plan D

- Driving only [probability of about 2%], or

Plan E

- Airports and Roads closed [probability of less than 1%], or

Plan F

- Aborted trip en route and overnight or more delay [probability of less than 1%].

Looking at it from another viewpoint, users may use the same time and extend their range of operations. As an example, if one spends six hours a day in travelling by car to go on a

180

- mile round trip, then he or she could extend the range to a round trip of over 420 miles, with reserves. The operating area is thereby quadrupled.

### 11

### 12

Chapter 5 : The Business Model for Full

- Scale Develo pment and Production

When people ask me, "How much will a Magic Dragon cost to build and own and operate?", the inventor's answer is, honestly, "Whatever people are willing to pay for it.". A very rough estimate for a basic, home

- built version, is about $60,000, with the cost of the engine and power subsystems accounting for the lion's share. Buying a factory

- built Magic Dragon may cost twice as much to pay for labor and overhead, with savings in scale. Of course, an aircar inherently is an automobile, so this must be factored into the cost equation, since it avoids the cost of an automobile. The savings in travel time and convenience and extension of travel range would exceed the cost for many owners, renters, or leasers. Insurance costs may be lower, due to the safety features described at Safety, Risk Management, and Legal Aspects

.

One may assume Magic Dragon life cycle of 10 years; calculations are for 10 years at 1,000 flight hours and 10,000 road miles per year. For business use, owners may expense the cost of leasing or owning and operating their Dragons.

Investors and prospective buyers would be informed of TACRA survey results regarding prices for manufactured or kit Dragons. During the survey period, a concurren t cost analysis may be done to determine the required funding; when the investment required and the survey match, the program light will turn green. As an example, "Plan A" would involve 1,000 Dragoneers willing to deposit 10% of the price toward developme nt, with a guaranteed delivery price of $ 200k for a manufactured and certified basic Magic Dragon.

Kit builders may plan on investing a few hundred dollars per week over a period of a few years of part

- time work. As an example, they may spend an average of $400 per week over three years, for a total of about $60,000, while working an average of about twenty hours per week. The Dragon Lair central kit factory may provide the chassis and suspension with the power subsystems, including transaxle and fan. "P lan B" might involve 1,000 Dragoneers willing to deposit 10% each for a guaranteed delivery price of $ 100k for a kit they would build on the 51% rule, without certification.

In response to a Request For Information by the Air Force ‟s Agile Combat Support Program, the project was submitted for consideration by the Mobilization Analysis Working Group as a candidate for development beginning in 2010. The mission was described as a light utility personnel/cargo transport to support forwar d operating
locations. StrongMobiles might also be employed as manned observation platforms, performing the Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnai s sance, ISR, mission, similar to the inventor's experiences as a Forward Air Controller in Cessna O

- 1s and Ford M

- 151s. The
submittal envisioned a fleet of 20 vehicles at a unit cost of $ 250K and total Life Cycle C ost , LCC, for research, development, test and evaluation and deployment of $29 million dollars. The brief description notes that the cost for a Stron gMobile is more than the LCC of a car

or an airplane, but is less than the LCC of a car and an airplane.

### 13

The finances of the three main players in the buying or leasing scenario are described

below.

MANUFACTURER: Develops aircar

- invests $10M for engineering, tooling; Sets up plant, human resources, suppliers, insurers for production; Produces 2,000 units per year at unit cost of $75,000; Produces parts for maintenance and repair; Sells aircars and parts for 15% profit; and Sets up dealer

/buyer financing at 10%, earning 10%

- prime rate of ~6%.

DEALER/LESSOR: Sets up sales and service, training, and leasing; Purchases X aircars for $100,000 each at 8% interest for 20 years with monthly payments of ~$2,000X;

Leases aircars for 100 hours per month, 1,000 hours per year, at $150 per flight hour; Pays operation and maintenance costs of $75 per hour $7,500 per month each; Pays for facility, employees, etc. ~$4,000 per month spread over X; Earns profit of $15,000

- $7,500

- $2,000

- $4,000 = $1,500 per month each; Performs service/maintenance/repair as required; and Operates training center and charter

- taxi services.

OWNER/LESSEE:

- Users cost $100 per hour each of two, operate flying 6+ hours per day, 25 hours per week, 100 hours per mo nth;

- Owner buys aircar on $120,000, 10

- year 6% loan for $3,000 per month;

- Owner pays fuel, maintenance, insurance of $125/hr for 100 hrs, $12,500/mo;

- Owner avoids user costs of $200/hr for 100 hrs, $20,000/month;

- Lessee leases for $150 per hour to lessees; or

- Cost avoidance of $200 per hour for each flight hour, based on typical trips, $20,000 per month, saving =$20,000

- $15,000 lease cost = $5,000 per month.

Several co

- owner organizations or individuals could time

- share use of their StrongMobiles and share expenses. Other factors such as prestige, business opportunities, quality of life for users should also be considered. After production of the two

- seat vers ion gets underway, the manufacturer may wish to pay off the start

- up loan or go into development
of the four

- seat version. When the loans are paid off and production ramps up, then the market may be ripe for lower

- priced versions for a broader market.

Th e inventor will welcome any developers/venture capitalists to take the lead for the next phase of designing and building the prototype and production versions of the StrongMobiles . The inventor envisions a potential market and a billion

- dollar industry of thousands of operators and passengers who could avoid millions of wasted hours while driving on the highways and changing modes, within a decade from start

- up.

### 14

Chapter 6 : The History of the StrongMobile Project

Development of the Str ongMobiles has been ongoing for forty years in several phases.

RASer : The RASer (inventor's initials), was designed originally in the late '50s as a lifting

- body aircar (U.S. Patent 2.923,494). The main difference between the RASer and

other ro adable airplanes, officially called "autoplanes" by the U.S. Patent Office, was the
criteria that it be a one

- piece vehicle, that is, no parts need be detached at any phase of operation. This criteria then required that the wings be small enough to be incl uded
with the road vehicle. Previous aircar project s, such as the Ford/Stout Skycar, the Waterman Aerobile, the Fulton Airphibian, and the Taylor Aerocar, did require detachments and thereby increased the required time for a conversion operation.

The problems with propeller stowage were alleviated with a design similar to the Coanda
1910 that had a nose

- mounted compressor with a short duct and side exhausts. RASer was a vectored slipstream design; the stub wings relied on fan exhaust for lift. This

was based on the wingless NASA/Lippisch "Aerodyne" that resembled a Stipa “B arrel

P lane ” with a downward

- vectored exhaust stream.

The vectored fan

- stream design was later seen to be too risky due to the potential for engine failure at low altitude, such as landing or take

- off, and subsequent catastrophic loss of lift with little potential for recovery. Also, the aircraft landing gear mounting was found to be unsuitable due to weakness and the design had inadequate brakes for highway use. Construction on a prototype RASer was begun, but abandoned due to extensive relocations, time constraints, and the aforementioned design deficiencie s.

### 15

StrongMobile

The RASer was then modified in 1963 with conventional swing able wings as an undergraduate Aeronautical Engineering Airplane Preliminary Design project. The inventor's Instructor was the late Edgar Lesher, who held world speed records for lightplanes; he advised the class to "distort the specifications". The specificat ion chosen to be distorted came from my background in Detroit, that is, to distort by increasing the production numbers by making the airplane roadable. The figure below shows the preliminary design sketch for the project. The design was to have had a roa d drive via a power take

- off from the aircraft engine with a Dodge Flexidyne transmission and lightweight, light duty differential gear by V

- Plex. At full power for take

- off, the jet exhaust was calculated to be about 250 m.p.h., giving a boost to the wing ro ot lift, thus retaining the RASer's vectored lift notion.

### 1 6

A small model of the StrongMobile was built and displayed at the Experimental Aircraft Association's National Convention ca. 1965.

### 17

### 18

The StrongMobile design was tested in the CalTech Guggenheim wind tun nel as shown above. The tests showed that the aft fuselage

- body and tailplane interfered with each other and created a nozzle effect; this was cured by re

- designing the aft fuselage to provide more

up
- sweep towards the tail; this also makes for a more stable reflexed fuselage airfoil. Improvements to the 1/12th scale wind tunnel model were mainly removing the wheels and smoothing over the wheel wells, similar to the retractable concept. The Cal Tech
technicians also removed the wheels and filled in the wheel wells with clay and tested again; with the streamlining, the lift/drag ratio was 8:1, which is quite acceptable by airplane standards. The lower portions of the wheels will remain exposed for the initial engineeri ng prototype, although the wheel

- wells may be more streamlined with retractable "slipper" covers The model had a simulation of an engine cooling exhaust augmenter nozzle; this cowling design showed separation and was changed.

Other improvements increase th e L/D, such as eliminating the engine cooling exhaust duct drag, increasing wingspan, and re

- contouring the turtleback to reduce interference with the tailplane. Testing the current design is required. The design was patented with US Patent 3,612,440, 1 2 Oct 1971.

The design was then put on the back burner, so to speak, as a result of the vanishing lightplane market that was influenced by liability litigation and the fuel crunch. The inventor continued to refine the design with several design improveme nts. The rear end was changed to include a convertible bumper fairing that provided better

c rashworthiness. The large single dorsal fin was replaced with dual fins, a "pi"

- tail. The biggest change was to enlarge the wing surface area to accommodate the add ed weight of changing the design to use automotive suspension and drive train. The solution was to add folding wingtips and stow them. The design was re

- named "Magic Dragon".

A 1/12 th 

### scale tether model showed that the stability and center of mass were OK.

### 19

A 1⁄2 scale model was built and displayed at the Dayton Air Show. It had a fixed tailplane,

but was otherwise representative of the Magic Dragon design.

### 20

Chapter 7: The 'Magic Dragon ' Aircar Development Project

Designing the 'Magic Dragon' aircar prototype is a personal "labor of love" work in progress. The project is personally funded by the inventor at a $5K per year level. The design was begun several decades ago and impr ovements are made daily. The design is now considered to be mature enough to proceed with prototype development, so, the inventor is proceeding with developing his own Magic Dragon. The information provided here is offered so that individuals, groups, or o rganizations who are interested in building their own Magic Dragons can participate in forming a cadre for further development. The Air

Car Research Association, TACRA, is being established this year, so anyone can join by sending an application at *Associ ate Application

.

Currently, work is concentrated on showing the full

- size mockup fotos at various meetings. Long

- range planning by the inventor working alone is that it will likely take about five years to build, test, drive, and fly. An alternative is t o enlist the support of aircar fans and investors and developers.

One may reasonably assume that there are many folks who are not only curious about aircars, but actually would buy or lease and use them if they were available. However, mass production by an established manufacturer is controversial because of the potential for liability litigation. The Magic Dragon Development Program is intended to provide an alternative way for Magic Drivers to construct their aircars as home

- built aircraft, with plans and parts to be made available, in about two to four person

- years of effort. Initially, a group of builders and owner

- operators may organize as a "Lead Cadre" to build two or three or more Dragons, on a co

- owner basis. The organization may be formalized as a non
profit scientific research charitable organization. Some Dragons may be built for personal use and some more to sell or lease to others and so pay for the personal Dragons.

A network of Dragoneer Centers with facilities for parts and kits, buildin g, and testing may be developed. Later on, the Centers may be used for training, rentals and leasing, and servicing. Franchises may be used in cooperative consortiums for information

- sharing and specialized building. Some teams may grow into production fac tories, doing purchasing and distributing, sub

- assembly, and parts manufacturing for others. Eventually, some teams may build Dragons for resale and become manufacturers.

Development and production of the "Magic Dragon" aircar is considered to be a viabl e enterprise that would satisfy a niche market and provide a profitable venture for an extensive period of time. This may involve a planned operational use of, say, 10,000 Dragons in about 10 years, 20,000 in operation within 15 years, and, ultimately, ten s of thousands of aircars in use within 20 years. Within a decade, FAA type certification may be obtained to allow charter/taxi or other commercial use. There may be many other missions that may be done better with Magic Dragons, such as defense liaison as a dual use program. Others may include high

- urgency cargo.

### 21

Chapter 8 : Preliminary Design Overview

The inventor's background as a worker in the automobile industry, as an aircraft mechanic in the Naval Air Reserve, as a Command Pilot and Aerospace Engineer in the Air Force, and as an instrument rated Commercial Pilot gives him a broad view of the person al transportation scenario.

When the inventor was studying Aero Engineering, his instructor, Ed Lesher (world lightplane speed record holder) admonished students to "distort the specifications", that is, design something different. This inventor, having b een born and raised in Detroit, chose to emphasize the potential production quantity as the primary driver. His preliminary design of an aircar was graded "A+". The design was the basis for the second patent, #3612440, the predecessor of the Magic Dragon. The inventor then decided to improve the design to incorporate a complete automobile aspect, rather than being limited to a roadable airplane design. This change required many redesigns to accommodate the additional weight of COTS automotive components.

T he sketches at "Current Design Views" show the license and registration as "N142MD"; the "142" sums up the essence of the Magic Dragon as one "1" vehicle for "4" two "2" modes of travelling, both driving and flying, This is without any changing of seats or baggage from one vehicle to another and back again. Likewise, the Magic Dragon logo, in
the form of an Oriental ouri

- bouri symbol, shows the flying and rolling modes working together as a system, where there are some flying aspects in the rolling and vice versa.

Several folks asked why the inventor calls the mock

- up of the StrongMobile the 'Magic Dragon'. He explained that, since all of the more obvious names had already been used previously by others, he chose to recognize that the fan blows out of the gills, so, it seemed appropriate to call it "Puff, the Magic Dragon". It's also reminiscent of the primordial flying dinosaurs, or pterosaurs. Persons who operate the Dragons may think of themselves as "Dragon Drivers" or "Dragon Masters".

The main design desiderata for the Magic Dragon are that it should be simple, safe, convenient, and attractive. The last item is considered to be a parameter that is impossible for the designer to measure, since, like beauty, this is in the mind of the potential users. A s an example, the StrongMobile mock

- up model has brought out comments like "Way Cool!

- Good Luck!" from the many folks who have seen it.

While the true beauty of the StrongMobiles can only be experienced in actual operation, the design that provides the operation is very unique.

### 22

While it's relatively simple to set down the desired performance, the task of designing a machine that has a go od chance of achieving this performance is quite another thing.

Briefly, a two

- seat StrongMobile trades the two rear seats of a typical automobile for its flight components, or, said another way, it trades the two seats of a four

- seat airplane for

the add ed weight of the road components. In the same way, the four

- seat version trades off

two seats of a six

- seat airplane for road components or two seats of a six

- seat automobile for aircraft components. Thus, the users can pay just as much cost and burn twice the gas to carry half the payload in half the time, with freedom to choose their own times and places and door

- to

- door convenience. (Even though the inventor was a member of Mensa and Intertel, and had the help of many mentors stretching back to the beg innings of inventing, the design has been under study for several decades on a spare time basis, due to the problems involved.)

The main features of the Magic Dragon are that: 1) it is a fully integrated automobile and airplane that carries its wings and tail with it; and 2) transformation between airplane and automobile modes may be done with a push of a button, like magic.

This profile view shows the overall arrangement inside the StrongMobile.

Engine and road drive design is driven by the requirement for heavy

- duty 'workhorse' operation with high availability and minimum maintenance. The use of converted automobile engines and drive trains that can go for 100,000 miles between scheduled
maintena nce actions (other than Lube, Oil, and Filter) is highly desired for maximum availability.

The propulsion controls and instruments are simplified to eliminate traditional aircraft items such as magneto switches, mixture controls, primer controls, propelle r controls, cowl flap controls, and so on. Fuel flow is measured via totalizer to reduce hazards of

e xhaustion.

### 23

The structure is a combination of conventional automotive technology frame , chassis,

suspension, and road drive, with aviat ion technology body and flight surfaces.

### 24

The ducted fan airflow is bifurcated to exhaust along the sides of the body and wing root, so the top and bottom of the body are not exposed to the jetwash and so have less drag.

The fan may be custom

- made COTS by manufacturers such as * AeroComposites.com

. The fan may generate about 100 lbs. per sq. ft. of pressure over 6 sq. ft. for 600 lbs. of thrust.

### 25

T he enclosed fan is expected to reduce the noise level from about 107 pndB to about 70 pndB, as contrasted to a conventional propeller or a low

- noise propeller.

A conventional off

- the

- shelf automotive muffler system will be used.

### 26

Some survey responses indicated a preference for a mechanical road drive; a transaxle similar to the Corvette seems to be suitable; this would weigh about 250 pounds and cost about $3,000. Some responses indicated a preference for a fan clutch; a desig n concept is illustrated for satisfying this desiradatum. With a clutch gear, the duct exhaust doors are unnecessary; however, without the fan airflow for cooling the engine, a separate electric cooling fan system is needed and will be built into the proto type as shown in the sketc h. Adapter s from the engine to the fan and to the road drive shaft are required and must be developed. The drive train uses a drive shaft from the engine to the rear wheel transaxle unit. The preferred item is the Corvette transax le, which has an excellent record, costs about $3,000, and weighs about 250 pounds. Similar mechanisms may be adequate.

The fuel tank is located near the center of mass so the quantity does not affect balance significantly in flight. It is mounted low on the frame under the main crossbeam

.

The location also provides protection in the event of a rear impact collision.

### 27

SPECIFICATIONS:

Height: 80” [203 cm]

Width: 92” [234 cm]

Length: 19‟ 4” [589 cm]

Cabin width: 60” [152 cm]

Cabin height: 54” [137 cm]

Front wheel tread: 66‟ [168 cm]

Rear wheel tread: 56” [142 cm]

Wheelbase: 119” [302 cm]

Weight ratio front/rear: 45/55

Turn radius: 24‟ [7.32 m]

Baggage space: 12” h x 60”d x30”w

[30 cm h x 152 cm d x 76 cm w]

Weight empty: 2130 lbs [968 kg]

Weight loaded: 2900 lbs. [1,318 kg]

Curb weight: 2390 lbs [1,086 kg]

Wingspan: 29‟ [8.84 m]

Wing chord (avg.): 130 cm]

Wing area: 95 sq ft [8.7 sq m] Body area: 135 sq ft [12.4 sq m]

Wing + body area: 230 sq ft [21 sq m]

Wing + body loading: 12.6 psf [603

Pascals

Aspect Ratio: 6.7

Span loading: 100 lb/ft [150 kg/m]

Tailplane area: 33 sq ft [3 sq m]

Tail volume: 316 cu ft [8.8 cu m]

Dihedral: 12 deg [0.2 r]

Fuel capacity: 40 gals [151]l

Pilot plus passenger weight: 390 lbs [177 kg]

Baggage weight allowance: 132 lbs [60 kg]

Performance with Eggenfellner Subaru::

Cruise speed: About 140 kts [260 kph]

at 8,000 ft, burning about 7 gals/hr

at 65% power.

### 28

Current StrongMobile Design 3

- Views & Data Sheets

### 29

The option of retractable wheels is illustrated.

The turbocharged version of the converted Subaru engine is rated at 2 3 0 h.p.

### 30

### 31

Shorter Take

- Off & Landing versions are feasible for those who desire more utility.

### 32

Operators may choose to use two Dragons for many jobs that require four

- seat capacity or
use the four

- seat version; however, the design and development of the four

- seat v ersion is considered to be a challenging venture. For those who need more capacity, a six

- cylinder,
four

- seat stretched version may satisfy.

### 33

Some who have a need for more speed may like the SpeeDragon concept.

The ultimate limousine/camper/carg o version.

### 34

.

### 35

Some operators may require a vertical take

- off and landing capability; a concept is shown.

### 36

“Magic” Conversion Concepts

The "Magic" in the design is the use of automatic conversion systems

. With a service life of about ten years, the components for transformation should be designed for 10,000 cycles.

The wing transformation may be accomplished with a motor drive screw.

### 37

The bumper

- tail is shown above with the motor and cables. The wingtips, tail tips, and wing stowage bay doors have a similar design scheme.

### 38

The steering wheel (1) is for driving; it is semi

- stowable for flying. The center “T” stick (2)
with trim is for pitch and roll control for flying. Flight throttle (3) with mic button is on left door. Road and fan gear shift (4) is for driving. Accelerator pedal and foot brake pedal (5,6) are on the floor as usual. Rudder pedals (7) are stowable for driving. The pilot may keep his or her "Hands On Throttle And Stick", or so

- called "HOTAS", except for tuning radios, setting altimeter, etc..

### 39

Wheel Retraction & Extension

### 40

The diagram above illustrates the Warp Action Spoiler Plate, or “WASP” aileron notion

that allows the trailing edges of the outer wing panels to function as flaps, thus providing
more lift for take

- off. The spoiling action provides drag to provide more coordinated turns.

### 41

The diagram above illustrates the “Magic” action control as a manually

- operated system for the prototype item; it would be replaced by a fully automatic system for production

StrongMobiles, with a simple FLY

- ROL switch.

### 42

Chapter 9: Preliminary Engineering Calculations

NOTE: As of August 2004, as a result of survey responses, the empty weight is increased from 1700 lbs. to provide for larger wheels and tires (to 14" diameter) that are partially retractable, air conditioning system, fan clutch, and chassis fittings, to 20 33 lbs.

P ayload we ight is increased to provide for 390 lbs. for pilot and passenger, an increase of 50 lbs., plus an increase in baggage weight from 80 lbs. to 132 lbs., and an increase of 24 lbs. for fuel. Gross weight is increased to 2800 lbs., an increase of 15%.

For p erformance calculations, such as weight and drag effects for flight, the design uses the following specifications:

1. Maximum gross weight of 2800 lbs.;

2. Payload of 390 lbs. for pilot and passenger plus 132 lbs. of baggage;

3. Length = 1 9 ' 4 " road, 20' 6” flight; road width = 7'8"; wingspan = 29' 6”;

4. Aircraft engine of 220 hp (180 installed with mufflers);

5. Cruising speed of 120 knots true, approximately 140 statute miles per hour;

6. Range of 480 miles with half

- hour reserve at 65% power and burn rate of about 7 gph (20 mpg) on 40 gallons of fuel with 45 minute reserve of 7 gallons ;

7. FAR Part 23 Utility Category criteria; and

8. Maximum road speed of 90 m.p.h. (1200 wheel r.p.m.).

An example of available powerplants is the Eggenfellne r conversion of a Subaru auto engine by Eggenfellner.

Its features are that it:

(1) may be purchased as a "firewall forward" package;

(2) the price is reasonable at about $30,000 for the 220 h.p. supercharged version; and

(3) it has simplified contr ols without mixture control, carburetor heat, magneto switch, or primer controls and is very economical on fuel burn.

### 43

Performance is shown below.

The Wankel type engines may be modified from two

- rotor to three

- rotor versions to provide more power. Likewise, the Subaru conversions may be acquired in six

- cylinder versions, rather than four

- cylinder versions. The Subaru front

- wheel drive may be disconnected to save weight and simplify the front wheel suspension and duct design.

For the four

- seat version, with the more powerful 260 hp turbocharged engine, the cruise speed for 75% power, with 10% losses to give a net of 175 hp, is estimated to be around 140 KTAS. However, the main advantage of the higher power is a capabil ity of cruising at higher altitudes to be above the weather.

Some two

- seat version users may choose the higher power engine for better altitude performance.

### 44

Economic Analysis With Aerodynamic Drag

The reader can appreciate the effect of these calculations on the design when he or she
realizes that the power required varies as the 5th power of the speed. The intent of the Dragon and other roadable aircraft is to trade off the speed for time saved by using an autoplane as contrasted to a combination of automobile and airplane and the necessary

c onversion between the two modes. The Dragon will be slower than conventional fast lightplanes when cruising; however, it will be quicker for the trip on a door

- to

- door basis.

From an e nvironmental energy viewpoint, the S trongMobile uses a small amount of

e lectricity for reduction of conversion time versus burning fuel for higher cruising speeds. Cost of operation can be simply calculated from engine performance test curves and propulsor estimates. Propulsion performance can be translated into costs with fig ures for fuel consumption and fuel costs.

As an example, for the operation of the Dragon, one can use the typical data for a best cruise fuel consumption based on the usual specific fuel consumption rate of 0.5 pounds of fuel per horsepower.

Drag is base d on wind tunnel results and extrapolating them with consideration for the streamlining, flip

- tips, and so on, one may assume a maximum economy cruise lift

- to

- drag ratio, CL/CD|max, of 8. For cruising at a weight of 2700 lbs., one would then need 338 lbs.
of thrust. For the four

- seat version at 3500 lbs, the drag would be

3500/8 = 437 lbs.

The cruise horsepower of a 180 hp engine, at 65% of rated power, is 117 h.p., so the consumption would be 58.5 lb./hr., or 9.75 gallons per hour, gph. (Modern electronic fuel injected automobile engines provide more efficient operation.) For fuel costs of around $2.00 per gallon, the cost of fuel would be about $ 20 per hour. Cruising speed at maximum weight would be about 120 knots, improving as fuel is burned. Fuel capacity will be 4 0 gallons with full baggage of 132 lbs,, providing a no

- wind range of abo ut 360 nautical miles or three hours, plus :45 for reserves.

The drag equation for a flat plate is the simple D = Cd*S*q where Cd is the flat plate drag of unity, S is equivalent flat plate area and q is aerodynamic pressure. q uses sub

- factors of
half ai r density, equal to .0012 at sea level, and of V^2, where V^2 is velocity in feet per second, squared. For estimate calculations, the drag of one square foot of flat plate at 100 knots, or 169 ft/sec, is 29 pounds.

Using the horsepower equation where 1 hp =550 ft

- lbs/sec, the result is that a square foot of surface at 100 knots requires 29*169/550 = 8.9 HP/ sq. ft..

Working backwards from cruise thrust horsepower, the Magic Dragon can pull 117/8.9 = 13 sq. ft. flat plate area, similar to a 4 foot diameter disk. For checking, the fuselage/body

has a cross

- section of about 34 sq. ft. and an assumed drag coefficient (compared to similar shapes) of about 0.15, for an equivalent flat plate area of 5 sq. ft..

### 45

The flight surfaces and duct are estimated to contrib ute a similar amount for a total of 10

sq. ft.. Skin friction, based on the wetted area, the surfaces exposed to the airstream, is estimated to contribute a negligible amount.

Another calculation determines the drag due to the wing's lifting action, calle d the induced drag. The formula is based on the weight per foot of wingspan, squared, and is influenced by the inverse of q multiplied by pi. For preliminary calculations for the Dragon, it is equal

to:

(90^2)/25.6 pi , or 101 lbs. at 100 mph; and 101/0.3 6= 280 lbs at 60 mph and, at 100 knots, 76 lbs., or the equivalent of about 3 sq. ft. of flat plate area. One may refine the calculation by using the Oswald efficiency factor that would increase the drag by about 20%. One may

estimate that the horizontal t ail would add another 1

- sq. ft. of flat plate equivalent for a total of 13 sq. ft.. The 13 sq. ft. times the 29 pounds/sq. ft. gives 377 pounds of drag at 100 knots, the economy cruise speed.

Another simple calculation using a maximum lift/drag ratio of the usual 8:1 for conventional airplanes and the Magic Dragon as a 2700 lb. airplane at maximum weight gives 338 lbs. of drag.

The cost per pound of drag per hour would then be $ 20/377 lbs. = $ 0.053 per pound per hour. For an annual usage of 1,000 fligh t hours per year, this gives $ 53 per year. Although this may seem to be a small cost on this basis, one can figure the life cycle costs for flying about 1,000 hours per year, 20 hours per week, for thirty years and get a life

- cycle cost of 30 * $ 53 = $ 1,590 per pound of drag. As a practical example of using this trade formulae, one may examine the landing gear. If one were to pull the wheels up into their wells to the extent of the spring deflection of 6" and cover the wheel well with sliding doors , then one would reduce the almost

- flat plate area by one square foot, or 29 lbs. of drag, or about 8% of cruise drag. (See page 33.) One might implement this with Commercial Off

- The

- Shelf, COTS, electric actuators. A simple calculation based on parasite drag comparison would show a gain of about 12 knots, if one ignored the weight of the retracting and extending mechanism and the reduction of induced drag. The life

- cycle cost would then be 29 lbs*$1,590/lb. = $46,000.

One could then either:

save fuel costs of about $3,000 per year; or cruise at a higher speed and save on passenger costs of about $20,000 per year; or extend range to cover more territory of about 36 n. m. ; or have more endurance for uncertain weather.

One could also envisag e a simpler 'KISS' 1G method whereby locks would be inserted into the suspension as the vehicle sits ready for take

- off and so limit the downward movement when the groun d loads are relieved in flight. The solenoid locks would carry the spring compression and flight loads. The pilot could simply lock the wheels in the 1 G position prior to take

- off roll and unlock them prior to landing. One could then reduce drag by

### 46

about half of that of the above method and save on the life

- cycle cost and weight. This

meth od would eliminate the gear

- up landing hazard. The current design provides for full retraction of the wheels and “slipper” covers under the wheel wells for a completely aerodynamic low

- drag configuration.

Aerojet System Efficiency

The overall aircraft system efficiency depends on the interaction of the aerojet flow with the fuselage and wing root. The aerojet flow is only directed along the sides of the fuselage and the top and bottom of the fuselage only see ambient free stream fl ow. The duct exhaust doors will block about 90% of the flow; the perimeter gaps of about an inch will reduce the expected whistle noise from the gap leaks. The efficiency of the duct may be analyzed as a matter of drag. The drag is mainly a matter of skin friction. An estimate may be based on a factor of 1% of flat plate drag for the skin area wetted. The inner wall area is 36" times the length of the duct. The length is estimated by comparing the ogive curve to a line from the splitter nose to the exit pla ne. The length is 60

- 18 = 42" and the width is 33", therefore, the line is the root of the sum of the squares and is 63". Allowing for the curves with a factor of 20% gives 76" as an approximation. The area would then be 36*76/144=19 sq. ft. At a maximum operating speed of 270 mph or 400 fps, the drag of the inner walls would be 30 lbs. each for a total of 60 lbs. The outer walls would have a height of pi*36 and a length of 76 for an area of 60 sq. ft. and a drag of
93 lbs.. This results in a total skin dr ag of 93+60=153 lbs. With an engine of 240 hp, the rule of thumb thrust would be 240*3=720 lbs., so the net

thrust would be
720

- 150 = 570 lbs. for an efficiency of 570/720=0.80.

If the intake maw area is considered, then the added area would be estima ted for a length of about 18" and a circumference of about 42" for an area of about 5 sq. ft.. This gives a delta drag of 8 lbs. and an efficiency of 0.78.

Consideration of engine internal drag for cooling and refinement of the inner wall area for

the co wling and the throttle vanes would further reduce the duct efficiency to an estimated
0.67 for a net maximum thrust of 480 lbs.. For the aircraft system with a maximum lift/drag ratio of 8 and a gross weight of 2700 lbs., this gives a margin of 480

- 338 = 142 lbs..

### 47

Consideration should be given to the reduced skin friction drag of the duct walls, cowling, and throttles when operating at cruising speed and reduced power, with a lift/drag ratio of 8 requiring 338 lbs. of net thrust. This requires further study. Assumin g that the airflow speed is roughly the same for full power static and 75% power cruising, 360 lbs. of thrust would balance 338 lbs. of drag for a margin of 22 lbs. or 7%.

The scenarios of idling power for descent and for total loss of power require furth er study.

Calculation of performance is based on estimated: thrust, T; air density, R;

duct cross

- sectional area, A; Initial velocity, Vo; and added velocity, Va. Where Vo + Va = Total exit velocity. Using the relationship

T = 2RA * (Vo + Va) * Va , then T = 675 lbs = 0.05 * (220 + 50) * 50

as an approximation, showing duct exit velocity as 270 ft./sec. or 160 knots.

The increase in airflow on the wing roots is estimated to increase wing lift about 15%, equivalent to adding 30 square feet of ar ea or about 7 feet of wingspan

. This would be at a cost of about 50 pounds of drag or net thrust that may be offset by the reduction in required lift and associated induced drag of the wing unblown outer panels.

### 48

Launch & Take

- Off

Advice given to the inventor by the CalTech wind

- tunnel test experts (circa 1970s) was to "...keep the c.g. about a foot in front of the wing leading edge..." due to the lift from the body with its quarter

- chord center of pressure at station 55. This woul d translate in the current design to about station 84. This is also the approximate location of the pilot's and passenger's laps, which is most comfortable when the airplane is pitching in turbulence.

Since the Dragon's four

- wheel landing gear is unusual, calculations are made to ensure that
launch/take

- off is feasible. The process consists of three phases: acceleration as thrust

- to

weight ratio and distance; rotation as moments about the rear wheel contact point; and
lift

- off as lift

- to

- weight ratio

.

Ac celeration: Thrust is based on the commonly

- accepted horsepower

- to

- thrust ratio, that is, 3:1. With 180 hp, where a 200 hp engine is assumed to lose 10% for muffling, thrust is then 3*180 or 540 lbs.. Maximum gross weight is specified as 2 9 00 lbs.. Design speed for

take

- off is 57 knots, or 96 fps. With 2 9 00/540 = 0. 19 g acceleration, about 3.5 kt/sec, f or 1 6 seconds to accelerate to 57 kt, take

- off distance at an average speed of 48 fps, distance

would be about 7 00 feet. However; aerodynamic drag and wheel d rag would extend this significantly to an estimated distance of about 1,000 feet for sea level, standard day, no

wind conditions.

For the four

- seat version at 3,500 lbs., the engine would be more powerful, that is, about 260 hp, with corresponding thrust of about 780 lbs., less 10% for muffling.

Note: With the four

- wheel braking, stopping distance for the balanced field length may be reduced from that of conventional lightplanes.

Rotation: The pilot may raise the nose to the horizon about 8 degrees to g ive the wing an effective angle of attack with flaps down of about 8 degrees and keep the tail clear. Moments are summed around the rear wheel contact point at station 137, wing lift at the quarter

- chord point at station 105, and elevator down

- lift at stat ion 208.5. The c.g. is estimated at station 94 at gross weight with two 195

- lb. people at station 94, full fuel load of 40 gallons or 240 lbs. at station 118, and baggage load of 132 lbs . at station 130. Without
fuel or baggage, the c.g. is around station 92.

The wing airfoil section is similar to a Clark Y as modified by Higgins with a slightly reflexed trailing edge and further modified with 25% MAC slotted flaps and with slats. Lift coefficient for the wing with flaps deflected 16 degrees is estimated a s 1.2 and for the elevator when deflected 30 degrees is estimated as 1.8.
See http://flowlab.fluent.com/exercise /pdfs/clarky.pdf ]

### 49

Aerodynamic pressure, q, at 75 mph is calculated as 14 psf. Wing area is 4.3*24 = 104 sq.
ft. , plus 15% for jet boost

. Calculation of the vectored lift effect of the exhaust at 270 ft./sec. for a q factor of 85 on the 2.5

- feet of span equivalent and 4

- foot chord of the blown wing

roots would add a moment of [

- (1.2*10*85)]

- [

- ( 1.2*10*10)] =

- 852 lbs.*(144”

– 110 ” ) = - 28,968 lb.

- in.

Moments are summed as positive for nose

- down for weight and negative for nose

- up for wing lift, elevator download and drag, in in.

- lbs. , in sequence as follows: +[2,900lbs. * (144”

– 92”)] for air car weight

- {[(1.3 * 104 * 14 lbs.) * (144”

- 111”)]} * {1.19} for wing lift = [2,900 lbs. * 52"]

– {[1,893 lbs. * 33"]} * {1.19} = 150,800

– 74,338 = 76,462 in.

- lbs. nose

- down moment = or 6,372 lb.

- ft. nose

- down moment to rotate before elevator is de flected. When elevator is deflected for rotation, elevator area is (12'*3') = 33 sq. ft., less tip horn
reliefs Elevator drag of about 40 lbs. at a height of 6.5 ' will contribute

- 260 lb.

- ft. to the nose

- up
moment.:

- [(1.8 *33 * 14 lbs.) * (144”

- 208 .5”)]

– (40 lbs * 78”) for elevator downlift and drag

- [832 lbs. * (64.5")]

- [504 lbs. * 84"] =

- 53,664

– 42,336 =

- 96,000 =

- 8,000 lb.

- ft. For rotation, 6,372

– 8,000 =

- 1,628 lb.

- ft. nose

- up moment The wing and tailplane moments with section momen t coefficients of about 0.1 would add a

nose
- down moment of about 1,000 lb.

- ft. for a net of about

- 628 lb.

- ft., nose

- up, which is sufficient to raise the nose. Fuselage lift is based on the wing and tailplane moments acting on the wheel springs to raise the nose slightly. The moment on the 113" wheelbase gives forces at the springs and an angle of more than 2 degrees angle of attack. Fuselage lift area is based on an average width, calculated as 6 feet and a length of 20 feet and a lift
coefficient of 0.3 and a center of pressure at station 60 at 0.25 fuselage chord.

- [(0.3 * 120 * 14 lbs.) * (144”

– 60”)] = The summation of moments then gives

- 3,528

- 628 =

- 4,156 lb.

- ft. of nose

- up moment, to relieve half of the elevator download and drag. As veloci ty increases, flaps are raised, alpha is increased, and body lift increases, then the tail drag decreases.

The upward sweep of the bottom aft fuselage

- body may have a reduced pressure due to negative dynamic pressure, since it is partially sealed by the ru nway surface and the ventral fins. This may result in a significant nose

- up moment, about

- 1,000 lb.

- ft., at the expense of about 100 lbs. of momentary drag at rotation speed.

Four

- seat version Rotation: Moments are summed around the rear wheel contact po int at station 175, wing lift at the quarter

- chord point at station 143, and elevator down

- lift at station 246.5. The c.g. is estimated at station 99 at gross weight. Lift coefficient for the wing with flaps deflected 1 6 degrees is estimated as 1.8 and for the elevator when deflected 30 degrees is estimated as 1.8.

Aerodynamic pressure, q, at 59 knots or 70 mph is calculated as 11 psf. Wing area is 4*38= 152 sq. ft.. Elevator area is (18'*3') = 54 sq. ft.. Fuselage lift area is based on an average

### 50

width of 6 feet and a length of 24 feet and a lift coefficient of 0.2 and a c.p. at station 72. NOTE: Fuselage lift is based on the wing and tail moments acting on the wheel springs to raise the nose slightly. The actual calculations are that the 92,040"lbs. mome nt on the 113" wheelbase gives forces at the springs of 814 lbs., for a deflection of 4" and an angle of more than 2 degrees angle of attack.

Moments are summed as positive for nose

- down for weight and negative for nose

- up for wing lift, elevator down

- load, and fuselage lift, in sequence as follows:

+[3,500lbs. * (175

- 99)] {weight}

- [(1.8 * 152 * 11) * (175

- 149)] {wing lift}

- [(1.8 *36 * 11) * (175

- 246.5)] {elevator}

- [(0.2 * 144 * 11) * (175

- 72)] {fuselage}

= [3,500lbs. * 76"]

- [3,009 lbs. * 26"]

- [713 lbs. * (71.5)"]

- [317lbs. * (103")]

= 266,000

- 78,234

- 50,980

- 32,651

= 104,135 in.

- lbs. , or 8,678 lb. ft. moment to overcome to rotate.

Calculation of the vectored lift effect of the duct exhaust at 270 ft./sec. for a q factor of 85
on the 2.5

- foot of combined span equivalent and 4

- foot chord of the blown wing roots would add a net effect of [

- (1.8*10*85 ) ]

- [

- ( 1.8*10*14 ) ]

= - 1,278 lbs.*( 137

- 110 )

= - 34 ,506 lb.

- in.. =

- 2,876 lb.

- ft.

With the vectored slipstream effect, the total moment is 8,678

– 2,876 = 5,893 lb.

- ft.

The canards will contribute 200 lbs. on an arm of 175

- 24=151 in. 151/12=12.5 ft.)= 2,500 ft.

- lbs., leaving a deficit of 5,803

- 2,500 = 3,303 ft.

- lbs. Elevator drag of about 10 lbs. at a height of 6 ft. will also contribute to the nose

- up moment with about 200 lbs. of drag at 6 ft. =

- 1,200 lb.

- ft.; 3,303

– 1,200 = 2,103 lb.

- ft. The upward sweep of the bottom aft fuselage

- body may have a reduced pressure due to negative dynamic pres sure, since it is partially sealed by the runway surface and the ventral fins. This may result in a significant nose

- up moment, about

- 1,000 lb.

- ft., at the expense of about 100 lbs. of drag at rotation speed. 2,103 lb.

- ft.

- 1,000 lb.

- ft. = 1,103 lb.

- ft. Therefore, there appears to be insufficient moment for rotation. This may be easily accomplished by increasing rotation speed to 80 mph, or 70 KIAS to increase q from 14
PSF to 16 PSF for the calculations.

### 51

Initial Climb

After rotation, the elev ator down

- force is partially relieved, except for trimming load of about 200 lbs. (depending on fuel and baggage), and the fuselage lift is increased due to the increased angle of attack. With flaps up, wing lift coefficient is decreased to an estimated
1. 2; fuselage lift coefficient is estimated as increased to 0.6. q for 60 knots is calculated as 12 psf. Without considering the boosted wing root lift, lift is calculated as follows.

L = [(0.6 * 120 * 12) + (1.2 * 128 *12)

L = 864 + 1,843 = 2,707 lbs. This is adequate for sustained flight and climb at 60 knots.

Initial climb and climb

- out depend on the excess power available over the power require d. Initial climb rate after acceleration to best climb speed is estimated to be about 80 kts., or 135 fps. From 100 kt. cruising speed drag calculations, this reduces parasite drag by a factor of 0.64 and increases induced drag similarly by its inverse, for a total of 324 lbs. of drag. This assumes that Cl/Cd|max is about the same. The required power would be 324*135/550 = 80 hp. With engine 180 hp reduced by 80% efficiency to 144 hp, then this gives excess power available as 144

- 80 = 64 hp, which then gives a climb rate of:

64*550ft

- lb*60/sec / 2700lb = 782 ft/min. For initial climb with wheels down and Cl/ Cd of only 6, drag is increased to 450 lbs, so power required is 450*135/550 = 110 hp and rate is reduced to 34*550*60/2700 = 415 ft/min. Obstacle clearance distance of 50 feet requires
about 415 ft/min* min/ 60 sec = 7 secs., 7 secs. at 135 ft/sec = 945 ft.

. For sustained cruise climb at 75% power, 135 hp @ 80% for 108 hp and 80 knots,
for 108

- 80= 28 hp, the rate would be reduced to: 28*550*60/2700 = 342 fpm.

The four

- seat version adds 800 lbs. to the figures a bove. The induced drag is also increased, so drag for an L/D ratio of 8 for 3500 lbs. is 437 lbs. The 260 hp is reduced by 10% for muffling to 234 hp. At 80% fan efficiency
, a further reduction leaves 187 hp. The required power is then 437*135/550 = 107 hp ., leaving an excess hp of 187

- 107 = 80 hp. Lifting the 800 lbs. with 80 h.p. gives a rate of 80*550*60/3500=~ 754 fpm. For the cruise climb rate at 75% power, or 140 hp, the rate would be

33*33,000/3500 = 311 fpm.

Cruise

For cruising, estimat ed lift coefficients are 0.3 for the wing and 0.1 for the body

- fuselage and 0.15 for the tailplane download. The wing lift is composed of the root and the main wing, where the root is estimated to contribute about 300 lbs. and the main wing about

1800 lbs. The body lift is estimated as about 900 lbs. and the tailplane download about 300
lbs. Net lift is estimated as 2700 lbs.

With 180 hp, using the same drag figures, with parasite drag increase offset by induced drag decrease, 65% power cruise is estimated as 140 KTAS, or 160 mph. Using the Subaru conversion figures of 0.3 lbs of fuel per hp per hour for the 220 hp version,

### 52

0.65*220*0.3 = 43 lbs => about 7 gals per hour, giving 160/7 = 23 mpg. The more efficient automobile engines would be expected to bett er this figure significantly. As examples, the * Eggenfellner website gives a burn rate for cruise at 65% power of 6.5 gallons per hour. Allowing for a half hour of driving before and after flying and an hour to get to alternate, and a 40 gallon fuel supply, this gives about 4.5 hours of cruise, which, at 120 KTAS, g ives

a no
- wind range of about 540 miles. The FAA speed limit when flying below 10,000 feet is

250 knots.

Approach and Landing

The design is based on the assumption that the pilots will aim for keeping the nose on the horizon during appr oach and while landing. This technique will allow the ground effect to naturally flare and cushion the touchdown and roll

- out.

Automobile Mode Weight Distribution

The airplane mode c.g. at gross weight is at station 92. With the 190

- lb. wings stowed to give a c.g. at station 94, the front wheels at station 26, rear wheels at station 137, the weight is mostly on the rear wheels. The distribution is calculated at 44 % on the front wheels and 56% on the rear wheels. Without baggage and full fuel, the weight would be more evenly distributed. When the rear bumper weight and c.g. shift are included, there would be a slight forward shift.

Road Turning Radius

The requirement is to perform a 180 degree turn on a four

- lane highway, where each lane is 12 feet wide. Allowing for starting in the center of an outside lane, the radius at the

centerline of the vehicle must be 1.5*12=18' = 216".

The wheel tre ad is designed as 54";

the radius for the outside wheel is 216 + 27=243".

The radius of the inside wheel is 216

- 27=189". The wheelbase is designed to be 106". Solving for arctangent 106/189 gives 29.3 degrees. The vehicle will be design ed for a front wheel turning angle of 30 degrees.

### 53

Wing Magic, Bending, And Locking

The wing bending moment can be easily calculated as a function of g and/or lift. It is assumed that the flaps are down for one case and that flaps are u p for the other case.

The spanwise lift distribution consists of the three factors: the body

- fuselage; the wing roots that are blown by the duct exhaust; and the wings outboard of the roots. It is assumed that the body and roots carr y one
- third of the weight. For the g

- loading case of 6.0 gs for Aerobatic Category, to be conservative
, even though the design is for Utility Category that would only require 4.4 g capability, the wing load i s then

2700 * 0.5 * 0.67 * 3 = 2700 lbs.

For a spanwise rectangular distribution (worse than elliptical), the load may be determined most simply as the semi

- span of 6'.

The result is then 14,400 ft

- lbs., or 172,800 inch

- lbs.

To estimate the loads at the hinge, where the hinge has shear planes 6" ap art at top and bottom, the force is then 172,800/12= 14,400 lbs. The hinge may be fabricated of aluminum or steel material. For long

- term fatigue resistance, aluminum with a strength factor of 48 kips is selected. For a cylindrical hinge pin with adequate safety margins of a factor of 2, the diameter required is about 1.25 inches. For the primary lock that resists the drag, it is assumed that an L/D for the wing is about 12, giving a load of about 14,400 inch

- lbs. The leading edge locking pins are spaced 6" from the hinge pivot, so are then required to be 1/12 of the area of the hinge pins, or about 0.5 inches.

The rear spar secondary locks are 15" from the pivot and will have the same pins.

Lateral Balance

The weight of the wheel steering column on the left side may be offset with the engine exhaust and muffler systems mounted on the right side. The air conditioning system may also be mounted on the right side.

For solo flights, the aileron trim required to offset the lack of moment usual ly caused by the passenger will result in a slight amount of drag from the raised spoiler. A small bungee

cord from the console to the T

- stick may be used to apply lateral force to the T

- stick. This may be about 0.75 horsepower

. Some travelers may object to this; it may be reduced by using a small (~12 pound) weight on the left wingtip that could be removed and installed into the right wingtip . The shift will provide about 340 ft

- lbs of moment to replace the moment of the passenger of 195 lbs. on an arm of 21 inches, equal to about 340 ft.

- lbs . The weight may be in the form of a back

- up battery or similar item of equipment.

### 54

Chapter 10 : The Full

- Scale Mock

- Up Model

The barn was built in 2001 and 2002 to house the mock

- up model, at a cost of about $5,000.

Its design incorporated the folding tailplane concept for better stability. A great deal of time was spent on studying an electric hybrid version; however, inputs from folks attending forums and exhibits overwhelmingly favored using a conventional mechanical road drive, so the design was changed accordingly. Also, there were objections to using the fan while driving, so a clutch was conceived for disconnecting the fan.

### 55

During 2003 and 2004, the mockup model took shape.

### 56

### 57

After building the half

- scale model and displaying it to the public directly and in various publications and presentations and gaining confidence in the general acceptance of the Magic Dragon design, the full

- size model construction was begun

. The decision to omit any power in the mock

- up model was made to shorten the build time and avoid costs, with the main goal of presenting the overall model to the travelling public and potential developers as soon as practical.

Muc h more detail and realism are built into the full

- size Magic Dragon model, such as the Chevy Geo Metro suspension and rack and pinion steering, seats and steering wheel, and the movable flight surfaces. The mock

- up was and is very useful for defining and r efining the many dimensions, from both technical and general acceptance viewpoints. Dimensions for the cabin were considered first, since people do not change much over time. The primary control arrangement was checked out with simulated operation. The des ign for using the steering wheel , brake pedal, and accelerator pedal only for driving and the Joyce

stick , rudder pedals, and throttle only for flying was verified, thus reducing the need for re

training and changing habits. This also emphasizes that the t hrottle controls rate of climb and the stick (with elevator trim) controls speed. (The inventor also verified the use of the
left

- hand throttle and right

- hand stick

- yoke operation, similar to his experience flying the

F

- 16 simulator.)

The basic chassis fr amework was built first to provide a basis for the rest of the design. Adapting and attaching of the automotive components, suspension, wheels, tires, and steering, steering wheel, and seats from recycled compact car parts was done next. The fan, maw, and duct were mocked up and installed. The use of composite materials (Bondo, reinforced screen) was built into the maw and duct. The cabin, seating (from recycled compact car parts), doors, and controls feel comfortable. Glazing the windshield, side windows, and skylights were relatively simple. Details such as safety belts and mirrors were added, along with cup holders. Throughout the designing and building, close attention was paid to defining the dimensions and improving building skills, including the seque nce of
construction.

Many areas were brought to light, including the overall size and weight (about 3,000 pounds). Lesson learned: the suspension needs to be bigger wheels (12" to 14") and stronger suspension. Most of the skin construction consisted of flat or single

- curvature panels, except for the intake maw and centerbody, the outer duct walls, the windshield crown, the wing root fairings, and the fairings at the top of the fins joining to the tailplane. This implies that tooling costs for production will be lower, with man

- hour estimates of 2,000 hours initially decreasing to 1,000 hours with learning.

The high point of the project occurred when the model was rolled out of the barn and the wings were spread and locked in place. All in all, the inventor is pleased with the mockup and spends many hours sitting in the cockpit, simulating operations, including cross

- wind

take

- offs and landings.

You are cordially invited to visit and view the mock

- up model. Call, E

- mail, or write Rich to make an appointment

### 58

Chapter 11 : Propulsion Test Plan:

9

- bladed 36" Diameter Fan with Elliptical Maw in Duct with Bifurcated Exhaust

As of 2005, the design is changed to use a conventional automobile road drive, rather than a hybrid electric drive. The inventor had planned to perform testing; however, he revised his plan to have a developer do the required testing. Some of the original test plan notions may be worth reading about and are described below. The program will be phased to research, devel op and test the Magic Dragon Aircar in phases:

Phase 0. Literature research, budgeting, and scheduling;

Phase 1. Full

- Scale ducted fan subsystem on test

- bed in hangarage;
Phase 2. Ducted Fan with low fuel

- consumption and low

- emission engine;

Phase 3. Th e ducted fan and engine with a generator and solar cell array and batteries; Phase 4. All of the above with an electric motor and controller and chassis; and Phase 5. The system will ultimately be used in a prototype Magic Dragon

.

Test Object

The test object is a fan driven by an engine or motor in a bifurcated duct with gills. The blade design shown in sketch above right provides for installing various blades on the hub at various root angles. Attachment of the flades to the hub will be with aircraft bolts and nuts. The material is to be determined; aircraft aluminum 2024T3 is preferred, with a
nominal thickness of 1/8th inch.

The diameter is sized to fit conventional automobile design with a diameter of 36". The fan

will have nine bl ades. The number of blades was selected to minimize noise, i.e., an odd number of blades to eliminate beating against the vertical duct splitter and the elliptical maw and an optimum of a large number to reduce acoustic loads and provide safety in case
of a damaged flade and a small number for fabrication simplicity.

### 59

Test Objectives

The objective will be to determine the net thrust available as a function of rpm from an engine or motor with known hp/rpm ratios for a range of 600

- 4800 rpm. The Magic Dragon system road performance goal is to provide an acceleration of 0

- 60 miles per hour in fifteen seconds, or 4 mph/sec, or 0.2 g. This would require a total thrust, from the road drive, of 560 pounds. The required engine power for cruising would then b e in the range of 25 horsepower at about 900 rpm.

Calculations for the flades are in a spreadsheet that is in the Microsoft Excel 7 workbook
*SS1.xls in the CD . The calculations are for an engine speed of 3000 rpm with 160 h.p

Test results will be report ed in graph form showing thrust as a function of revs, velocity thumbprint

- style profiles, and wall static pressures.

The expected result is an exponential curve showing a thrust

- to

- power ratio of approximately 4:1, less engine cooling and duct losses, w here the objective is to determine

these losses. I f tests demonstrate a ratio of horsepower

- to

- thrust of over 3: 1, for a net thrust of 75 lbs., then t he propulsor design will be considered to be a viable system for the StrongMobile.

### 60

Method Of Test

The engine/motor mounting structure and inner duct walls will be fabricated and static

load

- tested. The duct ring will then be added to the mounting structure. The maw, or intake, will then be fabricated and installed. The electrical generator wi ll be installed and
connected to batteries.

Static pressures at selected points on the maw will be made.

Thrust from the maw and from the fan will be measured separately to determine the contribution of each to total thrust. Duct drag will be measured se parately from thrust.

Thrust will be measured with a force scale. Fuel flow vs. revs will be measured. Airstream velocities will be measured immediately below the flades to assist in determining optimum blade angles.

Outer duct walls will be added in hori zontal increments of about 12" to fit the flow (five strips). Airflow will be visualized with smoke or particles along the duct. Static pressure measurements at grid points on the duct walls are also desired.

Fan pitch at the root will be set in increment s of 5

- 10 degrees over a range of 20 to 40 degrees. Fan twist may be varied from 20 to 40 degrees. (3 points)

Measurements of rpm and thrust will be taken in increments of about 100 rpm. over the range of 600

- 1800 rpm. (12 points) Revs will be measured wi th a tachometer.

Individual pressure measurements to determine fan thrust and duct thrust and spinner

thrust are desired.

The optimum positions for the gills will be determined and the gill throttles will be installed. Gill loads and control torques will be measured to ensure proper operation. The throttles will opened and closed at the rev test points. Additional tests may be done with the
throttles in an over

- blocking position for reverse thrust. Airflow will be measured at the exit planes with a Pitot tube rake in a 6" X 6" grid.

Torque measurements are desired; the means are TBD.

Vibration and sound pressure measurements are desired; means are TBD.

Meteorological data, temperature, barometric pressure, humidity and wind, will be

recorded with off

- th e
- shelf residential instruments and Weather Service observations.

A log of test activities, drawing s, photographs, and any unusual behaviors will be recorded, such as vibration, excessive noise, mechanical failure, or system malfunction will be
maintained

.

### 61

Chapter 12 : Safety, Risk Management And Legal Aspects

Many people put a priority on safety, so they look at the U. S. historical data that shows vehicles have about 1.54 fatal accidents per 100 million miles driven, as compared to 22 fatal accidents per million hours flown in "general aviation". If you figure that airplanes average 150 miles per hour, then general aviati on airplanes have a rate of 14 fatal accidents per 100 million miles flown, about 1 per 7 lifetimes. So, you can conclude that driving is about 10 times safer than flying. However, flying StrongMobiles may be much safer in contrast to "general aviation", w hen you consider their safety features

. StrongMobiles

w ere and are intended to improve safety, reducing insurance costs, and improving overall operation, as contrasted to conventional air planes and automobiles , with features such as:

1. the enclosed fan for less risk of contact injuries , contrasted to open propellers ;

2. the ducted fan provides reduced blade tip losses increased thrust for shorter take

- off;

3. the ducted fan naturally governs s peed to eliminate the need for propeller pitch control;

4. ducted fan eliminates slipstream torque for simplified control ;

5. quieter muffled engine and propeller noise for less fatigue and environmental impact;

6. COTS mechanical road drive to eliminat e the need for manual or mechanical towing and

to shorten the take

- off roll;

7. simplified pitch and speed flight controls with flaps integrated with elevator trim (a la Culver Vee) eliminates the need for separate controls and associated actions;

8. the Warp Action Spoiler Plate, WASP, ailerons eliminate the need for rudder control and associated actions;

9. the four

- wheel braking provides shorter stopping distance so the balanced field length may be reduced and the risk of over

- running is reduced, with anti

- skid brakes;

10. the slotted wing provides less risk of loss of control and/or stalling;

11. the lifting fuselage lessens the effects of wing stalling;

12. the low center of mass for less risk of turnover in cross
- winds or forced landings;

13. re dundant four

- wheel landing gear and braking system for less risk of loss of control and reduced landing roll

- out;

14. redundant wide

- stance front wheel steering via conventional automobile steering wheel control for less risk of ground

- looping or flipping over;

### 62

15. balanced weight on front and rear wheels for better steering control;

16. ground

- level cabin doors, without steps, for less risk of injury;

17. seating width comparable to airliner first

- class for better control (31" elbow width);

18. safety windshield and wipers and washers for better visibility and crashworthiness;

19. angle of attack sensor and display;

20. wide lifting fuselage with a flat bottom for air

- cushioned, more controllable landings (including forced landings due to power failu re or bad weather);

21. in bad flying weather, Dragon provides an alternative to getting to destinations by landing and driving; and

2 2 . fuel flow is measured via totalizer to reduce hazards of unintentional exhaustion.

Item 10 is considered to be important because many accident investigation reports blame wing stalls during landing approach as a common cause that can be easily reduced or eliminated. The action of plain versus slatted wing is illustrated. The left diagr am describes *stalling action . The right diagram illustrates the effect of slats *for STOL

Several optional accessories may enhance safety, such as run

- flat tires, lightning detector display, weather radar, traffic avoidance and terrain avoidance systems, synthetic vision displays, and fan anti

- icing systems. When compared to road operations, th e flight mode may reduce the risk as contrasted to road operations, considering collisions, slippery roads, and drunk drivers. The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association's Air Safety Foundation publishes reports that summarize accidents at: *AOPA ASF

. The FAA provides guidance

at: *FAA
, * AC and * AC 25.1309

- 1A

.

These and other features are intended to redu ce the safety risk of the system and so minimize the problems of accident litigation, while increasing the overall system utility. The White House has set a goal of reducing aviation accidents by 50% in the next ten years, as of a few years ago. When this was discussed at a recent conference, this writer criticized the policy of setting arbitrary goals as being contrary to the Deming philosophy of Total Quality Management. It would be much better to conduct a system safety program to achieve the optimum lev el of safety through specific actions, such as those listed above. The inventor has extensive experience in safety analysis; however, a rigorous analysis of the Dragon does not appear to be practical, due to a lack of usable data on comparable

### 63

systems. Ide ally, one would want to have a COSMIC flowchart that showed all of the significant hazards and their solutions that matched the current published accident rate. However, since most of the accidents are attributed to pilot error, analysis of why the pilots made the errors is highly questionable.

As an example, the inventor, at one time, was a Link Flight Simulator Instructor and noted a recurring problem. Sometimes, when students were descending and turning simultaneously, they misread the three

- pointer altimeter and leveled off 1,000 feet below

t he desired altitude. The inventor studied the process and concluded that the cause was confusion linked to the way that the pointer appears relative to the numbers. ( You can read about the same kind of problem when reading clock dials at *Dyna

- Zone

. ) There i s no simple way to find out what was going on in the students' minds when they erred. Instead, experience
, judgment , and common sense logic are used. The altimeter face may be modified to show the Dyna

- Zon e and reduce the risk.

The U.S. government has granted some relief as regards liability limits for older aircraft. However, the use of newer aircraft, such as Dragons, seems to be better managed by simply making and operating them more safely. Eventually, insurance rates may be granted for Dragons that are significantly less than for conventional aircraft, just as tricycle gear,
centerline thrust and stall

- proof aircraft have lower rates than traditional aircraft. Dragoneers in other less litigation

- sensiti ve nations may participate.

In the mid

- seventies, a conference about the StrongMobile was sponsored by Roger Windblade of the NASA and held with various agencies, NASA, FAA, DOT, etc.; however, the results were inconclusive. There was an expression of int erest in using freeways as a basis for landing strips; some favor making airstrips adjacent to rest stops. The original StrongMobile Development Report contains in

- depth background information

. H owever, there is no single integrated agency for regulating aircars.

Issues such as air pollution in certain overcrowded cities and gasbag crash protection will be addressed with consideration for the advantages of the flight mode relative to the ground mode. A desirable compromis e would be to exempt aircars from EPA regulation. Another desirable exemption would be for front

- mounted license plates that are required by some states.

There are some conflicts in regulations, such as the design of safety belt buckles and fuel

tank vent ing . The maintenance of an aircar with many COTS components, particular the road components, may be accomplished by automotive technicians; however, FAA regulations appear to require the services of a licensed mechanic. For those home

- builders

who make the ir own, the Repairman Certificate may resolve the issue. Questions have been raised about cases where damage or wear to the skin surface or brakes or similar items

have occurred , where there may be conflicts in requirements for mechanic qualifications

.

So me of the frequently asked questions about aircars in general allude to the operation by poor automobile drivers. Obviously, those who ask the question are unfamiliar with the rigorous training of pilots and aviation safety practices. Still, the vast major ity of General

### 64

Aviation, GA, accidents are classified as "Pilot Error". Several forum attendees raised the question of mid

- air collisions. An AOPA spokesman cited accident statistics that showed about one collision per month for all of the general aviatio n aircraft flying in the U.S..

Even when rigorous system safety management is applied, there will no doubt be some freak accidents. Reports indicated that only about a half dozen GA accidents per year that involved alcohol. So, while there is no rigorous s ystem safety analysis available, the inventor is confident that the overall safety of StrongMobiles will exceed traditional aircraft and automobiles. Anyone may expect that StrongMobile operations may meet and exceed the White House goals.

Overall system development of the Dragon will use the StrongWare PC Template System, with emphasis on the use of Hazard Analyses, Computerized Operational System Modeling for Integrated Control, Training, and Organizational Budget templates.

Example of a Hazard Report per MIL

- STD 882

1 . SYST./SUBSYST/UNIT: Operations in fan mode with objects or creatures, e.g., birds.

2. COMPNT. FAIL MODE: Pilot fails to see objects/ creatures in time to avoid them.

3. SUBSYST.FAIL MODE: Objects are ingested into fan and cause damage, failure.

4. SYST./COMP./PHASE: Airport and flight operations in fan mode.

5. SYSTEM EVENT/PHAS: Taxi, take

- off, and landing plus birds during cruise flight.

6. SYST.OPER.DESCRPN: StrongMobile taxi, take

- off, an d landing and cruise flight.

7. HAZARD DESCRIPTN.: Fan ingests objects/ creatures into fan duct.

8. HAZARD INDICATION: Objects may be seen in time for avoidance.

9. EFFECT OF HAZARD: Impact damage to fan, aircraft, various damages.

10. RISK ASSESSMENT: Potential for various component failures, loss of control.

11. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: Pilot scans ahead of path and avoids objects/ creatures.

12. ACTION EFFECTS: Eliminates hazard.

13. REMARKS/DOCS/DIRS: Fixed Base Operator keeps surfaces clear.

14. ACTION STATUS: TBD

15. NOTE/CAUTION/WARN: Include a WARNING in Pilot Operating Handbook.

### 65

Chapter 13 : Spreading The Good News About Str ongMobiles

Several activities introduced the Magic Dragon to the public in the past few years: * A presentation was given at the EAA AirVenture 2000 and 2001;

* The half

- scale model was displayed in the 2002 4th of July "Parade of Planes" in th e Dayton area;
* The half

- scale model was displayed at the 2002 U.S. Air a nd Trade Show; * Advertisements were published in EAA's SPORT AVIATION; * Feature articles by James Cummings and by Brian Albrecht were published in the
DAYTON DAILY NEWS and in t he CLEVELAND PLAIN DEALER; * A presentation was made at the Engineers Club of Dayton's Barn Gang; * The inventor was a guest on National Public Radio's TALK OF THE NATION on for

interview on futuristic cars that resulted in a thousand hits on this websit e; *The inventor presented papers at the Society of Automotive Engineers conferences in March, 2002 in Detroit, as part of a panel on Achieving Lighter Weight Vehicles, and in April in Wichita, as part of a panel on experimental aircraft;

* The inventor presented for a Sigma Xi meeting at the General Motors Technical Center in June 2003; * The inventor presented the slide show at the EAA AirVenture 2002 Eclipse Forum on Roadable Aircraft and 2003 Honda Forum; and
* Presentations were made at the AIAA/IC AS International Symposium in Dayton on July

14

- 17, 2003, as a poster session and at the EAA AirVenture on August 1st as a talk. * MSNBC Science Editor Alan Boyle mentioned this website on his website in November 2003, resulting in over 700 hits above th e usual 30 to 50 hits per day. * Presentation was made to the Dayton

- Cincinnati Section of AIAA in 2004; * Poster exhibit and forum presentation were performed at AirVenture 2004. * In 2005, a presentation was given to the Dayton

- Cincinnati Section of t he American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Conference; * A slide show presentation was made at Sun n' Fun in April in 2005 ; * A poster and videotape exhibit was shown at the AOPA Fly

- In and Open House at Frederick MD in June, where a hundred or so folks picked up brochures and CDs; * Mockup exhibit and Forum were made at AirVenture 2005; and
* Presentation was made at the SAE AeroTech Conference in 2005

.

The website has had over 4 0,000 visits from over 5,0 00 hosts and organizations; however,

no e
- mail responses have been received

.

Planning for 2007 includes forum presentations at AirVenture Oshkosh 2007 and the SAE

Aerotech c onference.

### 66

Monday, August 01, 2005

The Experimental Aircraft Association, EAA, * AirVenture ® 2005 was a truly big show, with many thousands of people attending. My exhibit display sit e was very well located at an intersection of roads leading to and from the show. I estimate about ten thousand people took a look while passing by and about a thousand took photos of the Magic Dragon full

size mock

- up model. Many were curious about what t he placard announcing the mock

- up meant, so I explained it was a model preview of the future. Hundreds of viewers were very enthusiastic about the project and the unique design of the Dragon. About a hundred or so visitors sat in the cockpit and wiggled th e controls; all were pleased with the roominess. Several news organizations sent reporters to make photos and gather facts about it. A visitor wrote my son Ed, who is a NASA

- JSC engineer

- manager with a yen for a Cozy, that "there was nothing like your fath er's exhibit anywhere else at EAA. He also noticed there was someone there every time he passed by". About a hundred visitors picked up PEP survey and member applications of the non

- profit Air Car Research Association. Several news organizations sent repor ters to make photos and gather facts about it, such as
AvWeb . The EAA Museum‟s TIMELESS VOICES folks who interviewed the inventor at Sun n‟ Fun were very impressed and the AirVenture photographer made several photos. Many visitors asked detailed question s about the technical aspects, such as the lifting body and the ducted fan. Some of the frequently asked questions concerned the proposed engine, the make of the chassis, and performance. Some visitors asked about the cost; I explained

that the convenience of the Dragon would lead to higher production and lower unit cost, about $140k. Overall, the exhibit was a resounding success in terms of verifying the acceptance of the Dragon design and business scheme. Some discussed the investment potential for ventur e capitalists, bearing in mind that the invention is in the public domain so anyone can make and use Magic Dragons. The forum presentation also was very good. One attendee asked if the intended usage of 1,000 flight hours per year was correct, since it

equ ated to about three hours per day; I explained that the Dragon was intended to be a

### 67

heavy

- duty workhorse. If a supply of real Magic Dragons that had already flown had been available, then many visitors said they would have placed an order for them on the s pot.

If you would like to listen to a radio talk show interview made at AirVenture, then go to http://computerguys.unisrv.net/eaa2007.html and click on the sessions for Friday at 9:45

and 10:00.

WEBSITE ACTIVITY \

The website averages about one thousand visitors per month; a recent sample of 200 are grouped as shown in the pie chart as non

- identifiable, academic, industrial, or government.

CONCLUSION

The St rongMobile preliminary design and business plan indicate that the project is feasible for further development, production, and operation to satisfy a potential market of
thousands of users.

### 68

The AirCar Research Association

The Air

- Car Research Association was established as a not

- for

- profit research organization with a Draft Charter and this website as a way for you to participate more actively in the development project. If you would like to join TACRA, then please fill in the Membership Application or send it with $20 annual dues to :

TACRA, c/o Rich Strong,

7514 Belle Plaine Drive,

Dayton OH 45424

- 3229

If your eyes light up when you daydream about building and/or driving and flying a Dragon, then the next step in the process is for you, as a potential StrongMobile builder or buyer, to voice your requirements and desires with the Price, Equipment, & Performance, PEP, Survey forms, and send them in for developers to use for making prototypes

.

The first step in organiz ing is to establish the Air

- Car Research Association, as set forth in

the Charter as a non
- profit 501(c)(3) scientific research organization. However, since this requires identifying various officers and membership, excluding members of the inventor's

fami ly, this step is temporarily in limbo, until volunteers request to be officers. There are only two Members as of January 2005. The next phase will be the formation of the Alpha Dragon Team and site selection of the Alpha Lair.

You can reserve your produc tion StrongMobile by making a 10% non

- refundable deposit on it. The minimum deposit is set at $19,000, to be used to defray development and production costs. Deposits will be put into escrow accounts as certificates of deposit until
100 are received or unt il the end of 2007. If 100 deposits are not received by the end of 2007, then those that have been received will be returned to the depositors. Development may commence whenever the trend of deposits shows confidence that sufficient deposits

will be made t o pay for development costs that are estimated to be around $20M. This plan will require about 1,000 deposits. Given the usual schedule required for similar developments, it is estimated that about three years will be required to set up for production. D eliveries may begin in 2010.

### 69

Charter and By

- laws
of

The Air

- Car Research Association

Article 1: Name and Location

The name of the organization is The Air

- Car Research Association, Incorporated, hereinafter referred to as "TACRA" ("thack`

- ruh"). The main offices and facilities of TACRA are to be maintained in the vicinity of Huber Heights, Ohio at the residence of
TACR A's principal officer, the founder and President. Should it become necessary for another person to serve as President, TACRA may relocate to another location.

Article 2: Type of Organization and Articles of Incorporation

TACRA is organized as a scientifi c research and education not

- for

- profit corporation of The State of Ohio. The charitable organization will apply for classification under Section 501(c)(3) of the I.R.S..

Article 3: Purposes

TACRA's purposes are to conduct education and scientific resear ch in the State of Ohio as

a non
- profit charitable organization. The specific purpose of TACRA is to perform survey research of potential users and developers of hybrid autoplane vehicles as related to the vehicle component of a Small Hybrid Inter

- Regional Transportation System, SHIRTS. Results of the survey research are to be disseminated to the general public.

The primary emphasis of the surveys will be on the StrongMobile vehicles that are based primarily on the work of the founder, Richard Allen Strong , proprietor of Safety Analysis Systems Company, as defined in United States patents, the StrongMobile Development Reports, various professional publications, and the worldwide website http://www.strongware.com/dragon.

TACR shall not engage in any party p olitics or religious activities.

. Article 4: Organization

TACRA's actions are to be managed by its Officers and the Associates at large, in accordance with the principles of General Robert's RULES OF ORDER.

Trustees named in the Articles of Incorporati on shall perform those functions required by law and serve as an Advisory Panel.

The Incorporator/Trustee shall perform all of the organizational functions until such time

as the Trustees hold elections.

### 70

TACR Associates shall hold TACRA and its officers harmless in any legal proceedings.

Other geographically local branches may be established.

Associates and Officers shall not speak for nor otherwise obligate TACRA, unless specifically authorized to do so by the Trustees.

Associates may present petitions for amendment of these By

- Laws to the President. Upon receipt of a petition with signatures of at least ten percent of the Associates, the President

shall cause a vote to be conducted.

Voting shall requi re a quorum of at least ten percent of the Associates.

. Article 5: Financial

Operations of TACRA shall be funded primarily by Associates' dues; such public funding

must be at least one

- third of the support of TACRA.

All financial transactions shall be recorded by the Treasurer.

Financial plans and budgets shall be approved by the Trustees. Approved budgets shall be authorizations for expenditures.

. Article 5: Physical Presence

TACRA will maintain facilities and equipment for conducting work related to the

purposes.

A library, worldwide website, and museum will be established and maintained for disseminating information to the public.

. Article 6: Information Dissemination

The results of the research are to disseminated to the public in the form of print documents, workshops, hardware displays, and electronic media (worldwide web).

. Article 7: Dissolution

In the event of dissolution, net assets of TACRA shall not inure to the benefits of Officers and shall be distributed to Associates or given to similar organizations. January 7th, 2005

### 71

Confidential TACRA/StrongMobile Survey for 2007

You can fill in this form, add your comments on the back side of the form, then FAX, 937

- 236

- 2113, scan & e

- mail, RichStrong@aol.com, or USPS to: TACRA, c/o R. A. Strong, 7514 Belle Plain Drive, Dayton OH 45424

- 3229

Name:________________________________ E

- Mail:___________________________

Address1: ________________________ Address2: _____________________________

ST: ____ ZIP: ______ Phone: ___________ Ext. ____ FAX #: ___________

Aero Rating(s): _____________________ PIC Time: _____ Gender: ____ Age: ____

Please describe activities that you would use your StrongMobile for:

O rganizatio nal:_______________________ P erso nal:_____________

____________
Title: ___________ Organization Name: ________________________ NAIC: _______

How many StrongMobiles would you us e in organizational/team fleet?: _____

Miles you'll drive per year : a. business: ____,000 and b. personal: ____,000

Flight hour s per year for: a. business; _______ and b. personal; _______

If you would co

- own with others, then enter total s for all. How many?: _____

Would you join a Team?: Yes ___ No ___ If ‘Yes’, then enter how many h ours you would spend building: ________

Ent er how much you would pay for a 2

- seat ___ or 4

- seat ___ StrongMobile:

a. kit: $___,000 b. factory

- built: $____,000 c. rent/lease/hr: $_____

STOL version: $_____,000

If you want more for the items listed below , then enter how much more you

want and how much more money you would pay for it.

Over 10 years service life? Years; ____ Pay: $____,000

Over 10,000 Flight hours; ____ ,000 Pay:$___,000

Over 120,000 Road Miles; _____,000 Pay:$____,000

Over 195 lb. Pilot & passenger(s) weight?: _____ lbs. Pay:$____,000

Over 66 lb. per occupant Baggage/cargo weight?: ______ lbs. Pay:$____,000

Over 420 nm Range: ____nm Pay:$___,000 Anti

- icing System: $___,___.

Over 140KTAS Cruise: ____kts Pay:$__,000 Supplemental Ox ygen System: $___,___

Over 10,000 ft Cruise Ceiling: ____,000 ft

. Pay:$____,000

Retractable wheels? Pay: $___,000

### 72

TACRA Associate Membership Application (fold and tape edges)

Name: __________________________ Date: ____/_____/ 2005

Address:

Email Address: Telephone:

I enclosed check ___ or money order___ for $ ____ Dues: $______

Contribution: $________ Monthly Contribution

- $ __________

Comments: _____________________________________________________

=========================FOLD LINE=========================

=========================FOLD LINE=========================

The AirCar Research Association

c/o R. A. Strong

7514 Belle Plaine Drive

DAYTON OH 45424

- 3229

### 73

About th e Author

(See WHO'S WHO IN SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING / MIDWEST / SAFETY)

The author

- inventor was born and raised in Detroit

. His mother

built Ford B

- 24 bombers during WWII. He was employed with Cadillac Motor for several years, while serving as an aircraft mechanic in the Naval Air Reserve. His first solo was in a Piper Cub in 1950 and he also flew Aeronca Champions. He joined the Air Force, trained as a single

- engine jet instr uctor, flew

Cessna O

- 1Fs as a Forward Air Controller and eventually flew as

a Command Pilot in multi

- engine transports (C

- 45, C

- 47, C

- 131,

U

- 3). He is now an instrument

- rated Commercial Pilot.

He retired from active duty and continued working in Air Force aerospace research and development until retirement from Civil Service in 1992. He has applied his knowledge acquired while performing System Safety Engineering on hundreds of projects in research and development and flight testing to developing the

Stron gMobile aircars.

Acted as President of a non

- profit scientific research charitable organization with hundreds of members and as Editor of its monthly Journal.

Established proprietorship, Safety Analysis Systems Company to provide consultant services. The main activity is developing personal computer software for managing and documenting system safety and related activities. The software may be used with

common office

- type PC software. This activity was gradually replaced by extensive research and developm ent of a combination airplane and automobile. The aircar project design and construction of various mockup models has absorbed most of resources in promoting the project. More information is posted on the website: http://www.strongware.com/dragon .

Specifi c Achievements: Supported over a thousand research and development projects, ranging from major weapon systems to numerous smaller projects, including several "firsts": military
communications satellite; tilt

- rotor research aircraft; airborne

chemical lase r; long

- endurance drone; and airborne high

- energy
laser.

### 74

Education:

- 1964: Bachelor's Degree in Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering from the University of Michigan;

- 1975: Master's Degree in Industrial Management and Supervision

from Central Mic higan University; and

Professional Registrations:

- Formerly registered as Professional Engineer (Safety) in
California;

- Formerly registered as a Professional Engineer in Ohio.

- Commercial Pilot, Airplane Single Engine Land Instrument.

Awards and Decora tions:

- Silver Star for Gallantry; Distinguished Flying Cross for

Heroism and for Achievement in Flight, Air Medal with 13
Oak Clusters;

### 75

### 76===========================================

C O S M I C P C W I S D O M

============== =============================

Computerized

Operational

System

Modelling for

Integrated

Control

Using Personal Computers For

Workable and

Intelligent

System

Development,

Operation, and

Maintenance

Third Edition

© 1993,1994,1995 Richard Allen Strong Safety Analysis Systems Company
7514 Belle Plaine Drive Huber Heights OH 45424

- 3229

800

- COSMIC

- 0**CONTENTS**

**A. INTRODUCTION:** ______________________________________________________ii.

1. Small Business Innovation Research; 2. Unsolicited Propos al;
3. Client Brochure; 4. Textbook; General Publication.

**B.ABSTRACT** :____________________________________________________________ii.

1. Spreadsheets for Modelling; 2. Problem Resolution; 3. SHERDQAM.

**C. IDENTIFICATION AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROBLEM/OPP ORTUNITY:**  _________1.

1. COSMIC as Pervasive Solution & Opportunity; 2. Many Diverse Specialties Lead to Duplication, Conflict; 3. Integrated Control; 4. Modern PCs Present Opportunities; 5. Significance.

**D. TECHNICAL OBJECTIVES:**

____________________ ___________________________2. 1. General Objectives; 2. Specific Objectives; 3. Scope & Sequence; 4. System Safety Program. 5. System Safety Data; ________________________________________________3. 6. Fault Tree Analysis; 7. Examples of Usage._________ _________________4. 8. Spreadsheets for Fault Trees._______________________________________5. 9. Fault Trees with Subsystem Hazards and Reliability._________________6.
10. Fault Trees with Decision Trees; 11. Double

- Trees for System Models; 12. Example o f Preliminary Model; 13. "MOST" Criteria;_________________ 8. 14. TQM Team Process; 15. Fishbone to COSMIC;__________________________ 9. 16. Organizational Psychology; 17. Learning Styles;___________________ 10.

18. Problem

- Solving Team; __________________ __________________________ 11.

19. Problem

- Solving Process. _________________________________________ 12.

20. Inventory as Baseline Model; 21. Special Factors; ________________ 14. 22. Operations Analysis; 23. Advanced Features; 24. Financial Relationship s; 25. Larger Systems; _____________________ 16. 26. Aggregation, Distribution, Cross

- Linking; 27. Display for Unification; _________________________________________ 17.

**E. WORKPLAN:** _________________________________________________________ 18.

1. How; 2. When; 3. Where; 4. Schedule; 5. Final Product;

**F. RELATED WORK DONE:** ________________________________________________ 19.

1. Defense Aerospace; 2. Education & Research; 3. Vehicle Development.

**G. RELATION TO FUTURE WORK:**

_____________________________ _____________ 20.

1. Phase II Work; 2. Phase III Work; 3. Draft Standard for COSMIC WISDOM___________________________________21.

**H. POTENTIAL POST APPLICATIONS:** ______________________________________ 22.

1. Modules in Libraries; 2. Auditing and Histor y; 3. Health Maintenance; 4. Insurance; 5. Arms/HAZMAT/RAD Proliferation; 6. GUEST; 7. Integration of Systems; 8. Human Relations; 9. Standards; 10. USCFR; 11. Very Large Systems; ______________________________________________ 23.
12. Personal Life Plann ing with COSMIC _______________________________ 24.

**I. KEY PERSONNEL:** ____________________________________________________ 25. 1. Professional Background; 2. Education; 3. Societies; 4. Awards and Certifications; 4. Patents; 5. Papers; 6. Other.**A. IN TRODUCTION** 

The paper is written for five purposes. It is intended to serve as: 1. Small Business Innovation Research, SBIR, Proposal. It was first written as a proposal under the SBIR program; format follows such proposals. 2. Unsolicited Propos al. It serves as an unsolicited proposal. 3. Client Brochure. It also describes work that may be done for clients. 4. Textbook. It serves as a textbook for a continuing education course. 5. General Publication. A guide for those who wish to use COSMIC m odelling.

**B. ABSTRACT**

**1. Need for Better Planning.** General Eisenhower is quoted as saying, **"Plans are not important**

**- planning is!"** 

The budget deficit for the nation is approximately the same as t he reported losses to unplanned events, that is, mishaps. Persons attempt to deal with very complex, dynamic, high

- risk systems in ways that are insufficient for adequately understanding these systems. The underlying root causes for many mishaps are oversi ghts and inadequate integration due to conflicts between specialized requirements that then result in poor visibility of physical and human limits, combined with overly

- optimistic
control. This is exacerbated by the proliferation of unique, uncommunicativ e software.

**2. COSMIC Models for Planning.** The Principal Investigator's, P.I.'s, background of 35 years in system safety engineering and management, working with and consulting on well over a thousand high

- risk development projects, indicates that severa l chronic problem areas observed in defense aerospace research and development work may be ameliorated through use of COSMIC modelling. COSMIC modelling may aid in personal comprehension of complex systems as an aid in planning and controlling. COSMIC mode lling is pervasive technology for describing risks by dynamic interactive modelling with embedded calculations using off

- the

- shelf personal computer, PC, software. COSMIC uses spreadsheet diagrams for creating a matrix of elements and activities. (The ac companying diskette contains sample COSMICs and database files.) a. Scope. Safety Analysis Systems, SAS, proposes to assist in development

of user

- maintainable COSMIC models using generic user

- provided PC software. SAS will act as System Operator for networking between COSMIC users. b. Application. COSMIC is particularly suitable for the class of high

- risk management between simple systems that may be managed through experience and rote memory and those involving specialized mainframes and operator s. COSMIC models are conceived of being made of up to a thousand inter

- related events that are described with quantitative formulae. By using selected aggregated and distribution, COSMIC models may be linked to encompass systems on the order
of several mi llion events f or a wide range of applications. c. Total Quality Management, TQM. COSMIC is particularly useful where an interdisciplinary and/or inter

- organizational system requires a moderate degree of integration, cooperation, and teamwork. COSMIC mo dels are developed through a team approach similar to quality circles or TQM Teams. The process encourages identification of team members as eight personality types and matches them to steps in a structured problem

- solving and planning process, thereby do ubling efficiency as compared to solving by any one person.

**3. SHERDQAM.** (Rhymes with "SURE CAN".) Since most management is concerned with planning the actions to avoid losses, that is, safety management, this is treated first. The initial application is with a Safety, Health, Environmental, Reliability, Decision, and Quality Analysis Model, "SHERDQAM".

1
**C. IDENTIFICATION AND SIGNIFICANCE OF PROBLEM/OPPORTUNITY 1. COSMIC as Pervasive Solution and Opportunity.**  The pervasive COSMIC technology may be characterized as both a partial solution to recurring problems and an opportunity to develop innovative new technologies.
The use for decision

- making is again emphasized by the dictum that

**"Data becomes information only when it is used for maki ng a decision."** 

A common problem in developing new technology is that no models exist for describing either the current technology nor the improvements to be gained by adopting the new technology, particularly as regards risk.

**2. Many Diverse Specialtie s Lead to Duplication, Conflict, and Isolation.**  Experience shows that specialized disciplines rely on manual techniques or unique computer programs to solve problems. This resulted in fragmented information often lacking in promptness. As an example, an Ai r Force Base Wing Commander found that his responsibilities, written by myriads of independent specialists and collected by his staff, resulted in a print

- out of one

- line statements three inches thick! Top managers may appreciate the visibility and
flexibi lity that might be provided by a desk

- top or laptop PC COSMIC. It would seem reasonable to assume that much of the paperwork could be reduced by having a common source of information for the various people, disciplines, and functions involved, an environme ntal improvement in itself.

**3. Integrated Control.** Clearly, one desires minimum duplication and maximum integration, especially where common goals and purposes prevail, such as

controlling risk of unplanned losses in areas of: safety; occupational

heal th; chemical hygiene; civil engineering; weather forecasting; environmental protection; pollution prevention; fire protection; system security; emergency response; disaster preparedness; traffic safety; trauma treatment; drug control; bioenvironmental eng ineering; reliability; and quality. Similarly, many complex systems that have the advantage of models of their systems depend upon smaller subsystems that lack such advantages.

**4. Modern PCs Present Opportunities.** The continuing growth in capability now available with the common personal computer, PC, calls for a review of its use. Its main feature is the ability to augment the individual mind where the scope of thinking exceeds human capabilities for managing high

- risk operational systems. A potential be nefit of this proposal would be a system model that might be used generically for other similar systems. A single integrated COSMIC might be developed and used by each and all of the activities mentioned above. New technologies may have COSMICs developed

c oncurrently to shorten the time required for adoption. Operational Subsystem managers may use COSMICs as a relatively simple, common method of describing their subsystems as modules to be incorporated into larger systems. This could
be done without resorti ng to unique software or specialists. Schedule needs for integration could be shortened, particularly for controlling risks.

**5. Significance.** The significance of the problem is seen particularly in the continually escalating costs of unplanned losses. Th e budget deficit for the nation is approximately the same as the reported losses to mishaps. One need only recall the notorious headlines, which will not be repeated, to appreciate the significance of the problem and the need for improving the ability to c ontrol losses. The significance of the opportunity may be seen in reducing oversights, improving technical performance, and improving teamwork.

2

**D. TECHNICAL OBJECTIVES 1. General Objectives.**  The general objective for this proposal is to find out how practical COSMIC is as a tool for the users. Special note will be made of the benefits and shortfalls of developing and using COSMIC, versus other intended methods. Findings revealed through the development and use of the

model , particularly as regards describing decisions and system changes will also be noted. An objective is to create polyphony out of chaos, i.e., "E

PLURIBUS UNUM".

**2. Specific Objectives.** Since the assurance of optimum loss and litigation is seen as an impo rtant driver for the system effectiveness, the technical objective is attaining the user's required assurance, with SHERDQAM models.

a. COSMIC should be practical for users in an on

- going development.

b. SHERDQAM should be capable of showing the significant risks of the operational system and accepting, calculating, and showing changes.

c. Further specific objectives are detailed as follows.

*** Life Cycle Management**

**- concept through re** 

**- use.** 

*** Includes total system and human resources.**

*** Optimize with cost, schedule, effectiveness.**

**Plate 1**

**- System Program Management** 

**3. Systems Program Management.** See Plate 1. Systems Management, as explained by von Bartalanffy in GENERAL SYSTEMS THEORY, is the startin g point for COSMIC. The emphasis of high

- risk weapon systems engineering, as implemented by Gen. Bernard Schriever, was on integration and optimization throughout the system service life cycle, including all elements, subsystems, and segments.

*** Minimize unplanned loss, damage, injury.**

*** Includes occupational health, environmental safety.**

*** System Safety Group, SSG, ensures all are involved.**

**Plate 2**

**- System Safety Program** 

**4. System Safety Pro gram.**  See Plate 2. The requirements were defined in Military Standard MIL

- STD

- 882 some 20 years ago. The main goal of system safety management is the optimum level of safety. The DOD/DOE/DOT/NASA standard for precluding unplanned losses is the system safet y program, which formalizes the assurance process. The process has also been widely adopted by many defense and power and communications industries world

- wide.

3The Standard requires a System Safety Group, SSG, composed of representatives

for all conce rned, to ensure that omissions and oversights were minimized and communication maximized. The SSGs served as Quality Circles and TQM Teams.

*** Program Plan** *** Progress Reports**

*** Hazard Analysis Reports * Safety Assessment Reports**

*** Health Hazard Reports * Mishap Analysis Reports**

*** Change Analysis Reports * Explosives Classification**

**Plate 3**

**- System Safety Data** 

**5. System Safety Data.** See Plate 3. a. Program Directors ensure that the information is acquired in a timely

manne r by specifying development of the reports shown. Emphasis is placed on
historal data to use lessons learned.

**1. System/Subsystem/Comp: Maintenance hangar or vehicle garage. 2/3. Comp/Subs Fail Mode : Fail to contain fumes and ignition sources.**  **4/5. Sys/Comp/Event/Phase: Operational, maintenance, or storage.**

**6. Operation Description: Vehicle operating or being maintained/stored.**

**7. Hazard Descri ption : Sparks and fumes leaking from tanks/HAZMATs.**  **8. Hazard Identification: Only if leaks large enough to smell or see. 9. Effects of Hazards : FIRE. Loss of vehicle and garage; injury.**  **10. Risk Assessment : $100,000; "Occasio nal". Risk Index 1** 

**- C.**  **11. Recommended Actions : Fume/fire detect/suppress; or seal HAZMAT/fuel 12. Effect of Actions : $5,000 installation; procedures.** 
**13. Remarks: Doc,Dat,Dir : Manufacturer estimate. NSC ACCIDENT FACTS. 14. Status: Dwg,Spec,Pro : OPEN pending safe completion of testing.**  **15. Note, Caution, Warn : Warnings in HAZMAT handling/storage procedures. Chemical Identity: ______________________ P.E.L.: ________ T.L.V.: ____** 
**NIIN: _________ P/N: ___ _______ QTY: ____ MFR: _______________________**  **Medical Exam: _ Personal Protective Equipment: _ Air Permit: _________**

**MIL**

**- STD** 

**- 882 Risk Index is 1** 

**- C; with corrective actions, 1** 

**- E.**  **Radiation Type: abcdefg Power: 12345 Minimum Distan ce: 12345**  **Probabilistic Risk Analysis (ANNUAL ~$K )**

**FACTOR: BUDGET: HAZARD: ACTION: CUMULATIVE: Probability 0.99 0.01 0.99 0.98** 

**Misha p/Action 1000 120 5 115**  **Operation/Maintenance 20 200 5 15 Medical/Legal 400 300 1 29** 
**Time/Schedule 1000 500 2 990** 
**PROBABLE TOTAL _______ 1158 11 13 1126 Life Cycle Cost @ 6%, 20 years._________ 120 30** 

**Plate 4**

**- Hazard Analysis Report.** 

4b. Hazard Analysis Reports. See Plate 4. These are iterated throughout the program in phases: preliminary; system and subsystem; and operational and support. The plate displays a database printout of the items for a common

hazar d as rows of data. Note that it includes Annual Risk and Life Cycle Cost. Budget and Cumulative are discussed later.

*** Difficult to describe complex chains of events.**

*** Difficult to relate interfaces between elements.**

***** **Difficult to describe and optimize the total system.**

**Plate 5**

**- Hazard Analysis Report Problems** 

c. Hazard Analysis Report Pr oblems. See Plate 5. There are several problems with the standard hazard analysis report required by MIL

- STD

- 882. d. Operating Hazard Analysis. Another format used in the operational and support phases is based on columns and rows in landscape format. This format, known historically as an Operating Hazard Analysis, OHA, places Items 1 through 5 as rows and Items 6 through 16 as columns.

**6. Fault Tree System Analysis.** Noting the problems described in Plate 5, safety professionals sought better ways to cope with problems. a. System. The "main claim to fame" in the system safety engineering is

the so

- called "fault tree", a diagram which details the various causes that may lead to a mishap. It was derived from Bell Telephone Laboratory's work in

netwo rk analysis used in ICBM guidance systems about 30 years ago. The diagram is drawn as a vertical flow

- chart with the main fault at the top and various blocks and paths with symbols linking together so it looks like
a Christmas tree. The essence is cont rol theory, rather than breakage. b. Process. The key process in developing fault trees is the tracing of the flows of control signals and power. As Dave Hassel has taught thousands of system safety engineers at short courses with the University of Was hington,

"No matter where you begin analyzing a system, if you trace the

signal and power, you will ultimately end by defining the whole system."

c. Problems. Due to a heavy reliance on manual methods and/or unique software programs, there i s no standardized method of documenting fault trees nor library of them; therefore, there is no interchangeability. Fault trees are foreign to the layperson who must interpret them. The vertical arrangement is different from horizontal charts used by mana gement; information cannot be readily transferred to other conventional systems. They are not very useful for explaining to laypersons, as in public relations or litigation.

**7. Examples of Partial Usages.** Five case examples illustrate COSMIC's value. a. A fault tree was developed for a weapon system. The complete tree was displayed in a hallway. Many of the project people consulted the tree, since, as one observer remarked, "It's the only way to see the whole system!" The program also used color

- co ded flowcharts by ARINC for trouble

- shooting.

5b. The P.I. displayed a fault tree of the flight control system of a robotic intelligence

- gathering vehicle. The program manager asked if it could be used for reliability analysis

- it could be and wa s modified.
(Note that the MIL

- STD

- 785 on Reliability requires that, where there is a

man

- machine interface, the analyst assumes that the human is error

- free.) The P.I. wrote the Safety Plan for the Wright Laboratory requiring that the analyst assume a 1% error rate, based on Air Force maintenance studies.) c. An organization's hundreds of contracts experienced delays of half a year. As a TQM matter, the process was analyzed and a flow diagram was developed. The 25

- foot long diagram was also displayed in the hallway to show the lengthy process. Several weeks were cut from the schedule. d. The first flight of a chemical laser involved several operators, the laser, the ventilation and suppression system, and the aircraft. The P.I.

flow

- charted 59 st eps in the emergency procedures; the test was successful. e. The final example involved tracing the actions in the acquisition, use, and disposal of HAZMATs; the process involved about 20 organizations.

**COL> A B C D E F G H I J** 

**_____________________________________v____________________v____________v____**

**ROW v v v**

**VV +**

**------------- + +** 
**-------------- + v**  **v**

**3 | Personnel >**

**---- > Absent .75 >** 

**----------------------- \**  **v**
**4 +**

**------------- + +** 
**-------------- + v | v**  **5 v | v**

**6 +**

**------ -------**  **+ +**
**-------------- + v | v**  **7 | Vehicle fuel >**

**---- > Leaking .05 > v | v** 

**8 +**

**------------- + +** 
**-------------- +**  **\ +** 
**----------- + v 0.00375** 

**9 \**  **> Fumes .10 >**

**- >AND> FIRE** 

**10 +**

**------------- + +** 
**-------------- + >OR< +** 

**----------- + ^**  **11 |HAZMAT/WASTE >**

**---- > Leaking .05 >>/ > POLLUTION | |** 

**12 +**

**------------- + +** 
**-------------- + +** 
**---- -------**  **+ | 13 |** 

**14 +**

**------------- + +** 
**-------------- + +** 
**----------- + |**  **15 | Electrical >**

**---- > Exposed .05 >** 

**------- > Igniter .05 >** 

**- /** 

**16 +**

**------------- + +** 
**-------------- + +** 
**----------- +** 

**Column A boxes are called Basic Object Blocks, or BOBs.**

**Columns C**

**- D and Colu**  **mns G**

**- H boxes are Numerical Object Blocks, NOBs.**  **The formula for cell H8 calculates the joint probability of cells D7 OR D11 as 0.05 + 0.05 = 0.10. The result in cell J8 is the joint**  **probability of cells D3 AND H9 AND H15 as** **0.75 * 0.10 * 0.05 = 0.00375.** **Sealing the HAZMATs would give a safety level of 0.99, given human error. The probability of pollution is likewise improved from 0.10 to 0.01.** 

**Plate 6**

**- Spreadsheet Fault Tree** 

**8. Spreadsheets for Fault Trees.** See Plate 6. The use of spreadsheets in finance has been expanded to include useful functions as "smart" flow charts. The added advantage over conventional flowcharts is that the numerical calculations may be also incorporated into the spreadsheet and recalculated in simulation. The rows are used for elements such as: subsystems; organizations; and cost centers, including the interfaces between them that are systems in their own right. Referring to Plate 5, I tems 1, 2, and 3 are entered in rows as elements, Items 4 and 5 in columns as event phases.6 **9. Fault Trees with Subsystem Hazards and Reliability.** As descriptions of systems, fault trees are usually "stand

- alone" items, meaningful only to a small gro up of specialists. Another form of system safety analysis, the Subsystem Analysis, is similar to the Reliability Failure Modes and Effects Analysis in that each function is analyzed in detail. These two analyses may be readily written into spreadsheet flo w diagrams. Both safety, including occupational health and environmental protection, and reliability are thus performed with the same effort, avoiding duplication. Human factors are included for safety, health, environmental, and reliability training.

*** Faults Are Traced Backwards to Human Decisions**

*** Decisions Are Traced Forwards to Succ ess or Faults** 

**Plate 7**

**- Double** 

**- Tree** 

**10. Fault Trees with Decision Trees.** See Plate 7. Faults always stem from human
errors made in decis ions; recall the 1% error rate. In the operations area, decision trees have been used to show the various scenarios stemming from
successive decisions. The two trees are combined in the "Double

- Tree". The resulting diagram then shows both the consequences of the decisions and the causes of the losses in a single diagram that relates one to the another.

**1. Flow of Events in Columns > > > > >**

**2. Elements**
**in Rows / 4. Success Paths > 5. Success Trees**

**V V V 3. Decision Trees <**

**V \**  **6. Fault Paths > 7. Fault Trees**

**2.a. Controller**

**2.b. Controllee**

**Plate 8**

**- System Model Format** 

**11. Double**

**- Trees for System Models.**  See Plate 8. Defense systems are managed with considerations for Systems Engineering, prescribed in MIL

- STD 499, and Configuration Management, as prescribed in MIL

- STD 480. These standards define the arrangements and relationships of typical systems, subsystems, segments, and activities. Industry has similar guidelines. The Double

- Tree may be expanded to include these to ols. Three suggested guides follow.

a. Conventions. Two simple conventions clarify the arrangement. 1.) Success paths are placed above fault paths; 2.) Processes being controlled are placed below the items that perform controlling, in an hierarchical format.

b. Truncation. Users may determine an appropriate level for truncating the model. A typical cut

- off might be the normal breakage expected,

such as 1%

- 2% per year, where costs for the model might exceed the actions being modelled.7

+

----------------- + +

------------------ \ +

---------- \ +

-------- +

+

------------ + /

- > Present >

----- S

- > Detect fumes, >

-- >OR> Ventilate > Re sponse| | Personnel >

-- D< +

----------------- + | sparks, intruder | / +

---------- / _ Abated |

+

------------ + \

- > Not present >

- F

- \ +

----------------- - + / +

-------- +

+

-------- --------- + \ /

+

---------------- \ v /

+

-------------- + /

- > Vent/Drain Sys. >

- >

- >

- >

- >

- >

- >

- S

- >

- >

- >

- >

- AND

- >

- >

- / | Safety system > D< +

---------------- < v /

+

-------------- + \

-- > No System >

- F

- >AND

- >

- >

- \ /

+

---------------- / \ / \ /

+

----------------- + \ S

+

-------------- + /

- > Fuel sealed >S \ / | Vehicle fuel >

- D< +

----------------- \ \ /

+

-------------- + \

- > Fuel leak/vent >

- F

- \ \ / +

-------- +

+

----------------- / \ \ / +

--------- \ /

- >

- >

- F

- >

- > SPILL _|

+

-------------- --- + >OR

- >

- >

- >AND

- OR<

-- >> Fumes/Liq.>OR< _ INJURY_|

+

-------------- + /

- > HAZMAT sealed >S / +

--------- / \ +

-------- + | HAZMAT/WASTE >

- D< +

----------------- \ / \

+

-------------- + \

- > HAZMAT leak/vent>

- F

- / \

+

----------------- / \ \

+

----------------- + >

- AND> \

+

------------ + /

- > Electric sealed >S / \ |Electrical Eq >

- D< +

----------------- \ / \

+

------------ + \

- > Electric spark >

- F

- >

- > \ / \

+

----------------- / \ / \ \ / \

+

------------ + +

----------------- + \ +

- -------- \ / \ | Natural 3 /

- > Grounding Rods >S >OR

— F>

---- --- -- > Igniter >

- >

- / \ +

-------- + | Environment >

- D< +

----------------- \ / +

--------- / >O R

- > FIRE _|

+

------------ + \

- > Lightning strike >

- F

- >

- / / _DAMAGE _|

+

----------------- / / +

-------- +

+

------------ + +

--- -------------- + / | Social \ /

- > Security system >S / | Environment >

-- D< +

----------------- \ /

+

------------ +/ \

- > Vandal+torch+fuel >

- F >

- >

- >

- >

- >

- >

- >

- >

- >

- >

- >

- >

- >

- >

- >

- >

- >

- >

- >

- >

- >/

+

----------------- /

Plate 9 Double

- Tree of Vehicle Garage

**12. Example of Preliminary Model.** See Plate 9. The hazard discussed and illustrated in Plates 4 and 6 is illustrated showing that the scope may be expanded to include more o bjects (sans numbers for clarity): a. the Decision paths, “ D ” ; b. the Safety paths, “ S ” ; and c. the Fault paths, “ F ”

. d. Notice that system security and environmental impact are included in the model. The system assumes inclusion of the ecosystem. e. Notice that preliminary models require very little memory or calculations, although some effort must be spent in creating the model;8

**COST CENTER MANAGER BEGIN PHASE ONE**  **SUBSYSTEM/EQUIPMENT BUDGET Est.| Cum.**

**____________________________________________________________________________**

**Executive Management | P= | 0.75 | | Write i n the | P= | .90 | .90**  **and planning factors | M= |**

**- 1200 | > | description of | M= |** 

**- 20 |** 

**- 1180**  **for actions on the | 0= | 2400 | | the success or | O= | +200 | +2200 success roadmap. | S= |** 

**- 100 | | desired plan | S= |** 

**- 100 |**  **0 | T= |** 

**- 300 | | to achieve | T= |** 

**- 20 |** 

**- 280**  **" Plan A " | PT | 600 | | objectives. | PT | + 54 | + 666 | | | | | | |** 
**Potential problems | P= | 0.25 | | Write in the | P= | .10 |**  **.10 or alternative plans | M= |** 

**- 300 | > | description of | M= |** 

**- 20 |** 

**- 280**  **with actions on the | O= | 0 | | the problem or | O= | 0 | 0**  **alternative roadmap. | S= |**

**- 200 | | hazar**  **d plan. | S= |**

**- 50 |** 

**- 150**  **| T= |**

**- 100 | | (Continue flow | T= |** 

**- 10 |** 

**- 90**  **" Plan B " | PT |**

**- 150 | | right for fix) | PT |** 

**- 8 |** 

**- 52**  **| | | | | | | GROSS TOTAL | GT | 450 | | GROSS TOTAL | GT | + 46 | + 614** 

**1.) Compare plans to attain the same objectives on the basis of the GTs. 2.) For prioritizing, rank decisions according to the differences in PTs** 
**3.) The lower ro w may be extended to the right for the best hazard fix.**  **4.) The decision criteria may be included as factors under each element. 5.) " P= " is for the Probability entries ( sum to 1 at GT ).**  **6.) " M= " is for the Money or cost expen ses ( negative values ).**  **7.) " O= " is for the Operational Effectiveness/prOfit/Output (positive**
**values); For incremental events, consider revenue or value added. 8.) " S= " is for the Safety Social Readjustment Stress; See Holme**  **s -**  **Rahe. 9.) " T= " is for the Time or schedule costs ( negative values ).**  **10.) " PT= " is the product of the Probability and the sum of the Money, Operational effectiveness, Stress, and Time.** 
**11.) " GT= " is the Gross Total of PTs for the event/phase.**  **12.) " Est " is the planning estimated data for the event. 13.) " Cum " is the cumulative running total, subtracted from budget.** 

**Plate 10**

**- "MOST" Cr**  **iteria.**

**13. "MOST" Criteria.** See Plate 10. In order to include the decisions, criteria must be established for the decisions. This is shown with simple numerics to
illustrate the decisions under risk. Common criteria are sho wn as "MOST" factors. Experience has shown these to be involved in most decision

- making. Note that the Safety Stress is included for human factors that are often overlooked. Condensed models may use the PTs as in Plate 6 preliminary format.9

*** Expand SSG to CCB to TQM Team Process**

*** Extend Double**

**- Tree to Total System** 

*** Include Quality Measures and Special Factors**

**Plate 11**

**- TQM Team Process** 

**14. TQM Team Process.** See Plate 11. The Total Quality Management, TQM, practice is inherently aligned with the COSMIC in that the processes are addressed and the significant factors are addressed, along with the statistical process

cont rol, SPC. The Special Factors are extendable to include the measures of quality, especially as defined by the end user customer. The crucial improvement is the involvement of people and their processes. The teamwork of the System Safety Group and Environ mental Protection Committee may be extended to the Double Tree Team, which is just a bit more than the usual Configuration Control Board, which may include the concept and members of the TQM Team.

**To Customers >>>**

**> > > > >> / / / / /** 
**/ / / / /**

**======================= Team ======== ==================>>**  **/ / /**
**/ / /**

**> > > >>> From Suppli**  **ers**

**__________________________________________________________**

**+**
**- --------**  **\ +** 
**---------- \**  **+**
**------------- +**  **|Customers >>>>Requirements> \**  **>> Satisfaction |**

**+**
**- --------**  **/ +**

**---- ------**  **/ \**  **/ +**

**------------- +** 

**+**
**- --------**  **\ +** 
**-------- \**  **\ +** 
**----- \**  **/ |TQM Team >** 

**- >** 

**- Process >** 

**- >** 

**- >** 

**- > Solve >/** 

**+**
**- --------**  **/ +**

**-------- / / +** 

**----- /** 

**+**
**- --------**  **\ +** 
**---------- \**  **/ |Suppliers >>>> Resources >/** 

**+**
**- --------**  **/ +**

**---------- /** 

**Plate 12**

**- Fishbone to COSMIC** 

**15. Fishbone to COSMIC.** See Plate 12. The well

- known TQM fishbone is an excellent starting point for defining the process and the people and functions that are involved in the process. Simply converting the fishbone into a COSMIC might improve structur ing the process and setting it up for including the other COSMIC capabilities described above.**10 16. Organizational Psychology.**  The SSG and CCB usually operate under some rules

such as Robert's RULES OF ORDER . Some organizations go further and use

struc tured problem

- solving for planning. Since solving problems is inherent in continual improvement, a special feature is added to further improve the COSMIC process. The following summarizes the best from experience. a. Maybe you've come across books suc h as THE QUADRANT SOLUTION , or
A WHACK ON THE SIDE OF THE HEAD , or PLEASE UNDERSTAND ME . Maybe you've heard about "hemispheric specialization" or "lateral thinking" of de Bono, or "Janusian thinking", or the Meyers

- Briggs Type Inventory, MBTI; they all re fer to personality types and traits.

b. In THE T FACTOR: HOW TO UNDERSTAND TIME AND USE IT RIGHT! , Dr. Mark Stein explains how Jungian personality type influences how persons relate to time. He explains their traits: 1.) "feeling" f

- type fo r spatial, living in the past; 2.) "intuitive" i

- type for spatial, living in the future; 3.) "sensation" s

- type for active, living in the present. 4.) "thinking" t

- type for conceptualization, living in all three.
c. David Kolb and Min Basadur, in ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY , indicate: 1.) People have different styles of learning and solving problems; 2.) They seek and work best in occupations that use their styles; 3.) They avoid people and work that conflicts; and 4.) They can team together to be more effective.

**1 2 3 4 Spatial Observing Verbal Active** 

**feel watch think do**

**hunch listen logical work**

**intuitive reserved reasoning trying**

**open quiet analytical practicing** 

**accept look rationalize responsible**

**receiving careful conceptual practical** 

**Plate 13**

**- Learning Styles** 

**17. Learning Styles.** Their instrument, the Learning Styles Inventor y, uses only 12 questions to identify four learning styles. See Plate 13 for a simplified version. The words in each row are scored for relative preference:
"4" for "most like me"; "1" for "least like me"; and so on. In MAPS OF THE MIND, Charles Hampden

- Tu rner describes the theories of J. P. Guilford on creative performance and Jean Piaget on development of intelligence. Totals for the four columns are combined and plotted on a Guilford

- Piaget grid (similar to the "World of Work" seen in academic career c ounselling):

a. Column 1 less Column 3 is plotted vertically; and

b. Column 2 less Column 4 is plotted horizontally.11 The results determine problem

- solving roles as follows: 1.) Divergers or Idea Generators ("DIGgers"); 2.) Assimilators ("SIMmers"); 3.) Convergers or Optimizers or Judges ("COJitators"); and 4.) Implementers or Accommodators ("WAIers").

**SPATIAL**

**( + )**

**___________ Warrior / |**  **\ Diverger** 

**Accommodator / > \**  **Idea Generator Implementer / 4 | 1**  **\ "DIGger"**  **"WAIer" / | \**  **| / \**  **|**

**ACTIVE (**

**- ) |** 

**--- ^** 

**---- C** 

**--- v**  **---- | (+) OBSERVING**  **| \**  **/ | Col.2**

**- Col.4** 

**\ | / horizontal** 

**\ 3 | 2 /** 

**\ < /** 
**Converger \**  **_____|_____/ asSIMilator**
**Optimizer (**

**- ) Artist (?)** 
**Judge VERBAL "SIMmers"**

**"COJers" Col.1**

**- Col.3** 

**vertical**

**Plate 14**

**- Problem** 

**- Solving Team** 

**18. Problem**

**- Solving Team.**  See Plate 14. Kolb and Basadur build on these to create a structured problem

- solving method.

a. It's one of those cases wher e the actual results pretty much go along with the theory. Decades of data collecting show that people do tend to work in occupations that use their favorite preferred styles. 1.) therapists, secretaries, systems engineers, retirees as DIGgers, 2.) scientists, technicians, bankers, inspectors as SIMmers; 3.) engineers, military, nurses, teachers as COJers; 4.) administrators, athletes, consultants, salespersons as WAIers; 5.) A Core sector is added by the P.I. f or a "Coach" for the Team.

b. There are three choices of strategy given by Kolb and Basadur: 1.) develop supportive relationships, the easiest way; 2.) improve the match between style and life, more difficult; and
3.) becom e more flexible

- learn the other styles.

c. The McBer Company of Boston markets the Kolb

- Basadur techniques and other training, doing organizational development exercises using 1.) above initially by training teams. The teams are composed of represe ntatives from each of the four styles to show that efficiency can be increased by about 100%, when compared to any single person trying to do it by himself or herself. Team Members contribute with their greatest strengths, whether they be spatial,
observi ng, verbal, or being active. TQM Teams use a combination of Members whose learning styles are matched as closely as possible to the phases of the problem

- solving process. A nice fall

- out is that round

- table meetings may have seating arrangement as shown in the Plate 14.12
**( Modified from Kolb & Basadur of Case Western University )**

**_________ 4b. Execute the / |**  **\ 1a. Choose Model,** 
**Solution. / > \**  **or Objective / 4 | 1**  **\ 4a. Select a / |**  **\ 1b. Contrast it** 

**Solution. | /**  **\ | with Reality**  **|**

**--- ^** 

**--- C** 

**--- v**  **--- |**  **| \**  **/ |**

**3b. Evaluate the \**  **| / 2a. Identify** 

**Consequences. \**  **3 | 2 / Differences**

**\ < /** 
**3a. Consider \**  **____|____/ 2b. Select Probl em**  **Alternative Solutions as a Difference**

**Team Solvers: / Phase 1 / Phase 2 / Phase 3 / Phase 4**

**DIGgers: >>>>>>>Goal A.; NOTE: If the Coach cannot form a team with** 

**\ \**  **\ Model B.; optimum specialized roles, then roles** 

**\ \**  **\ & may be shared as best can be done.** 

**\ \**  **\ Contrast B. >**  **\**

**SIMmers: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> \**  **> Difference B.1.;**

**\ \**  **\ Problem B.2.;** 

**\ \**  **\ < Feedback <<<<< &** 

**\ \**  **Select B.2.> \**  **Alternative**

**COJers: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> \**  **>Solution B.2.a;**

**\ \**  **\ Solution B.2.b;** 

**\ \**  **<< Feedback <<< \**  **< Feedback < &**

**\ \**  **Evaluate both> \** 

**WAIers: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Select one**
**\ \**  **\ &** 

**\ << Feedback <<<<< Feedback <<**  **\ Feedback <Implement.** 

**Plate 15**

**- Problem** 

**- Solving Process** 

**19. Problem**

**- Solving Process.**  See Plate 15. The process is similar to the way an

inter nal combustion engine works

- intake, compress, burn, and exhaust;

1

- > 2

- > 3

- > 4. This is the Learning And Problem

- Solving Sequence, LAPSS, and the intention is to go around the circle as one would run laps in a relay race
until near

- consensus is attain ed. This may entail some discussion of sub

- problems that may be resolved by using the same process. Note the similarity to the hazard analysis process. Solvers write their inputs to the LAPS plans (See Plate 16) as they go along the process. Each pas ses on a written statement or question to the next Solver. After acting, Solvers pass back the plans, including the feedback comments. Alternatives may be evaluated by using "MOST" Factors in Plate 16, Special and TQM Metric Factors.

The COACH

- COORDINATOR records actions at each step and maintains plans for future uses, including: goals; contrasts as problems; solutions; evaluations not implemented and reasons why not; and results of implementation and

feedback. In practice, the participant s may require moderate adjustments in attitudes towards other persons' techniques and methods of solving problems.13

**Date: _______ Name: ______________ About: _______________**

**________________**

**1. Diverger**

**- Idea** 

**- Generators pick goals & distinguish from current reality.** 
**1a. ______________________________________________________________________**

**1b**
**. ______________________________________________________________________ Feedback._________________________________________________________________** 

**2. Assimilators identify problems & select a problem to be solved.** 
**2a. ______________________________________________________________________**
**2b. ______________________________________________________________________**
**Feedback. ____________________________________**

**____________________________**

**3. Converger**

**- Optimizer** 

**- Judges consider solutions & evaluate them (See 5.)** 
**3a. ________________________________________________________________**

**______ 3b. ______________________________________________________________________** 
**Feedback._________________________________________________________________**

**4. Worker**

**- Ac**  **commodator**

**- Implementers select & implement a solution.** 
**4a. ______________________________________________________________________**
**4b. ______________________________________________________________________**
**Feedback._________________________**

**________________________________________**
**5. "MOST" CALCULATION: | Estimated: | Evaluated: | Implemented: | | |**  **5a. Probability ________|_____________|_____________|_____________________ | | |** 

**5b. Money Cost (**

**- ) _____|_____________|_____________|_____________________**  **| | |**
**5c. Output Profit (+/**

**- ) |_____________|_____________|_____________________**  **| | |**

**5d. Stress+Safety (+/**

**- ) |_____________|_____________|_____________________**  **| | |**
**5e. Time Cost (+/**

**- ) ____|_____________|_____________|_____________________**  **| | |**  **5f. Special/Metric) ____|_____________|_____________|_____________________ | | |**  **5g. Probable "MOST" ____|_____________|_____________|_____________**

**_________**

**Plate 16. LAPS Plan and Record**14 **20. Inventory as Elements.** The Double

- Tree is expandable to encompass inventory to define the configuration of the system as a double

- check to ensure that the
model is all

- inclusive. The configuration is the tangible and intangible assets of the system inventory. The risk picture is more visible with the descriptions of the purposes of the inventory items included. Some notions for starting modelling in term s of inventory are:

a. Make an initial estimate of the scope and accuracy desired, such as: a third of an hour of time, $10, and accuracy of 66% probability;

b. List, as line item elements, the tangible, physical inventory items

tha t are available, either through ownership or by borrowing;

c. List intangible assets and liabilities, including skills, knowledge;

d. List working relationships as resources, assets, or liabilities (clients, competitors, partners, superior s, subordinates, peers);

e. Review the lists and model them in the COSMIC preliminary spreadsheet, identifying relationships between the items, such as: 1.) objectives, obvious or implied, as operational functions; 2.) interd ependencies and interfaces

- hierarchical dependencies; 3.) sequences of causes and effects

- processes; 4.) oversights and omissions in planning; 5.) relations to "MOST" factors, including risks; 6.) current operating e nvironment as line items; 7.) decision

- making rules; and 8.) expected service life.

f. Consider aggregating the resources and assets as packages of tools with identified capabilities in terms of causing changes from specified beginnings to specified ends, in terms of functional process changes.

g. Bearing in mind what the past has shown in terms of inventory, and assuming that no changes are to be made, scan the forecast operating environment, then extr apolate and forecast the most probable future for the operational system, with an associated service life. "If you always do what you always did,

Then you'll always get what you always got,

h. Identify your highest imaginab le goals and translate them into specific objectives in terms of specific decision horizons as: 1.) immediate;
2.) short

- term; 3.) mid

- term; 4.) long

- range; 5.) ultimate.

i. Continue the LAPS process by identifying the differences as shortfalls and/or obstructions and the requirements or needs for attaining them.

j. Combine, integrate, optimize, and rank order the plans in terms of efficiency and effectiveness in attaining the objectives.

k. Consider the plans in terms of requi rements of resources and match the

tool

- packs of resources to the requirements.

l. Review the inventory and dispose of unnecessary items.

m. Implement the overall program set of integrated plans.**15 21. Special Factors.**  With the developm ent and problem

- solving understood, the model is further developed. The factors to be used are dependent upon the particular needs of the system to be modelled. Special factors include such considerations as: industrial and governmental or legal standards; socio

economic rules; physical laws; specifications; or human factors such as stress. A mechanism for including the factors to be used in formulae calculations is simply writing in descriptions of factors in the left

- hand column and the value

of the fact or in the cell to the immediate right, as shown in Plate 6 as "NOB". The potential value of this capability may be appreciated in the observation of

one over

- worked scientist who, upon being informed of the requirements for environmental management, wryly responded,

" The requirements are duly noted and will be added to the 63 others."

**Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Limit**

**M* Cost MA + MB** **+ MC = ML**
**O* Output OA + OB + OC = OL**

**T* Schedule TA + TB + TC = TL**

***Constrai nts in Linear Programming** 

**S, Safety SA + SB + SC = SO**

**Safety as t he Objective Function to Optimize** 

**Plate 17**

**- Operations Analysis** 

**22. Operations Analysis.** See Plate 17. In operations analysis, the software being used by Safety Analysis System s also provides for optimization with linear programming, with sensitivity analysis. This feature will satisfy the chronic problem identified in 5. above, i.e., optimizing safety within the constraints of cost, schedule, and operational effectiveness. The order may also be set up for optimizing output within safety limits.

**23. Advanced Spreadsheet Features.** Some programs have advanced features.

a. Audit. Capability to audit the data by tracing the formulae and verifying the proper types of inputs is seen as a useful verification.

b. Graphics. The graphics features provide for quick development and presentation of information in various kinds of bar charts, line graphs, etc. Graphics may also be inserted into BOBs to illustrate, as with symbols.

c. "What IF?". Most spreadsheets provide functions for changing inputs to see different outputs. A feature of certain spreadsheet software provides for interactive modelling in real time whereby an output may be changed and the inputs are automatically changed. Sensitivity analysis is available.16

**P A S T >>>>>>>>>> P R E S E N T >>>>>>> F U T U R E**

**Probable Probable**

**Assets TransActions Assets**

**(Resources) (Resources )** 
**Profit And Loss**

**Liabilities Liabilities (Requirements) Risk Decisions (Requirements)** 

**Plate 18**

**- PAL** 

**- TA** 

**- PAL** 

**24. Financial Relationships.** See Plate 18. Since the spreadsheet originated in the financial community, it has many features that are useful and are retained in the SHERDQA M. A problem seen in P&L statements is that the data is so compressed that the purposes and relationships are lost. The usual procedure of making Profit And Loss statements, records of transactions, and listings of
assets and liabilities are intended to be retained, expanded, and clarified.

**| | | | | | | | | Planning| Design| Mrkt'g | Proto | Test | Proc | Mfg | Sales**  **____________|_________|_______|________|_______|______|___ ___|______|_______**  **Management | | | | | | | | ____________|_________|_______|________|_______|______|______|______|_______** 

**Personnel | | | | | | | |**

**__ __________|_________|_______|________|_______|______|______|______|_______**  **Finance | | | | | | | | ____________|_________|_______|________|_______|______|______|______|_______** 

**Testing | | | | | | | |**  **____________|_________|_______|________|_______|______|______|______|_______**

**Engineering| | | | | | | | ____________|_________|_______|________|______**  **_|______|______|______|_______ Production | | | | | | | |**  **____________|_________|_______|________|_______|______|______|______|_______**

**Facilities | | | | | | | |**  **____________|_________|_______|________|_______|______|______|______|_______**

**Equipment | | | | | | | | ____________|_________|_______|________|_______|______|______|______|_______** 

**Plate 19**

**- Larger Systems** 

**25. Larger Systems.** See Plate 19. For these uses, beyond SHERDQAM, which is embedded in each activity, the term C OSMIC is used. In larger systems, the various departments or divisions or cost control centers and the people who are responsible for certain and accountable for areas such as facilities, equipment, functions, or on

- going events may be managed with individ ual spreadsheets. While various unique computer tools have been developed for managing organizations, experience has shown that these are oftentimesincompatible with areas such as technical or legal aspects and lack the advanced features found in popular spreadsheets.

17 Such tools oftentimes require dedicated personnel and extensive training. The larger system will be feasible with aggregation, distribution, and

cross

- linking.

**___________________________ |___|P_|__|__|__|__|__|_X|__| The COSMIC is inserted from**  **|___|M_|__|__|__|__|__|_X|__| the bottom row of the sheet |___|O_|__|__|__|__|__|** 

**- X|__| to left into the sheet below.**  **|___|S_|__|__|_ _|__|__|_X|__| ___________________________**  **|___|T_|__|__|__|__|__|_X|__| |QCB|__IX_|__IX_|__IX_|XX|__| |___|PT|__|__|__|__|__|_X|__| |___|_XI__IX_|__IX_|__|XX|__|**  **|___|__|__|__|__|__|__|_X|__| |_ __|__|__|__|__|__|_X|XX|__|**  **|GT1|T2|T3|T4|T5|T6|T7|T8|TT| <<< >>> |GT1|T2|T3IT4IT5|T6IT7|T8|TT| |___|__|__|__|__|__|__|XX|__|**  **|___|_XI__IX_|__|__|__|XX|_ _|**  **|___|__|__|_XI__|_XI__|XX|__| |___|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|** 

**Plate 2 0** 

**- Aggregation, Distribution and Cross** 

**- Linking** 

**26. Aggregation, Distribution, and Cross**

**- Linking.**  See Plate 20 above.

a. Aggregation. For small systems wherein there may be limited memory, COSMIC is amenable to aggregation to higher

- leve l COSMICs, to achieve order of magnitude gains. The mechanism is a simple matter of saving portions of the basic model, such as bottom

- line row and right

- hand column totals, and inserting them into the higher

- level model, wherein one would have an array

w ith formulae that sum from a starting cell to the end total cells. Inserting
data between the two cells results in recalculation to include the insertion. Synthesis from the "grass roots" up

- chain could identify limiting factors, "LIMFACS", such as maxim a and minima.

b. Distribution. The advantage of distribution or allocation is seen in the ability of maintaining focus on top

- level or system

- level control so as to
minimize sub

- optimizing. Top managers might allocate resources more efficiently and effectively, with informed information from lower

- levels. Delegation of decision

- making authority is crucial for accountability. The feature is similar to military fragmentations (frags) of the main Order of
Battle, OB, that are sent from the cent ral headquarters to field units.

c. Cross

- linking. The cross

- linking between organizations and functions at the same hierarchical level is seen as equally important. COSMIC would seem to be useful where exchanges of medium

- sized packets or modules o f information are required. Some software features automatic updating of related spreadsheets and databases whenever data is changed in any given sheet or database. Network linking is also available for massive parallel processing.

**27. Display for Unifica tion.**  In a typical organization, the COSMIC should be displayed at intervals or on special occasions such as program milestones to achieve the unity described in the anecdotes concerning the hallway displays. A typical 1 Megabyte sheet would display 4' x 15' in compressed format.

A 2

- level 2

- dimensional nested sheet would require up to 100 times this space, i.e., 40' by 150'! The advantage of computer display is obvious.18

**E. WORKPLAN**

**1. How**

- Workplans will be d etermined to a large extent by the government or client; however, the following pattern is provided as a "strawman" for planning purposes. The government or client may select high

- risk projects or organizations to be supported as teams.

**| | | | | |**  **Month>> | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 _________|_________|__________|__________|__________|__________|__________**  **| | | | | |**  **Buyer |ID Teams | | | Evaluate | | Evaluate _________|_________|__________|__________|__________|__________|__________**  **TQM | Meet & | Define | Solve | Form | Refine | E valuate**  **Team | Train | Needs | Needs | Model | Model | Model _________|_________|__________|__________|__________|__________|__________**  **| Train | Assist | Midterm | Assist | Assist | Final S.A.S. | Tea**  **ms | Survey | Report | Survey | Survey | Report | | | | | |** 

**Plate 21 Workplan by Month**

**2. When**

- Initial estimate is based on 500 hours to develop a SHERDQAM for a typical project. Intent is for Safety Analysis Systems to provide one day per week support for six months in meetings with the project team. One day per week meetings are envisaged as a combination of:

a. Asses sing needs and training personnel;

b. Analyzing the project and the team members' processes; and

c. Interim surveys of team members' progress to be evaluated.

**3. Where**

- Meetings are envisaged as a combination of mornings with the

whole t eam and evening with individuals, as required.

**4. Schedule**

- Activity will proceed in four phases:

a. Month 1

- 1.) Tutorials on the program; 2.) Assess computer expertise and equipment available;
3.) Form the te am and define the processes;

b. Months 2

- 5

- Assist team members in analyzing the system;

c. Month 6

- Review and Final Report.

**5. Final Product**

- The final product is the computer model of the organization and its relationships and the operati onal system, with database of TQM Team Meeting Minutes and surveys. One client has noted, "We can put the project on one diskette and update it when it changes!"19

**F. RELATED WORK DONE.**

See C.9. above and I. below.

**1. Defense Aerospace.** The various features have been used in the management and supervision of the Safety Divisions under the P.I.'s control. In supervising a group of a dozen professionals, workload was managed with about a
dozen dis ciplines interfacing with several dozen organizations in applying to about a thousand complex defense research projects. The P.I. contributed to improving MIL

- STD

- 882, particularly as regards safety testing and test safety, and various organizational safe ty plans. The P.I. also contributed to development of combat tactics for interdiction, using operations research analysis to define choke points on supply routes as a member of the tactics panel.

**2. Research.** The essentials of COSMIC have been applied t o:

a. modelling the human life with roles as in Plate 21 and phases;

b. a course of instruction in the psychical sciences; and

c. management of the organization.

**3. Education.** The P.I. has taught flight instruction. The essentials of COSMIC were applied in adult evening courses and presentations to many organizations on a variety of topics, including COSMIC WISDOM.

**4. Vehicle Development.** Development of a patented air

- ground vehicle has used

COSMIC.20

**G. RELATION TO FUTURE WORK.**

Since there is no inherent limit to the use of pervasive technologies other than the willingness of people to use it, continued expansion appears feasible. COSMICs may be developed for virtually any system.

**1. Phase II.** Assuming that Phase I provided sufficient assurance that COSMIC

is a cost

- effective and desirable technology, ß work may involve coordinating the activities concerned with high risk loss control as mentioned in C.3. above by inv iting professional groups and societies to consider SHERDQAM.

a. Further work might replicate with other organizations and projects.

b. A report of Phase I activity might be made available to other government agencies, software developers, indust ry and academia for further application.

c. A particular interest of the P.I. is exploring the feasibility of developing the COSMIC as an artificial intelligence engine.

**2. Phase III.** Work might involve exploring the feasibility of expanding applica tions of COSMIC to the areas mentioned in H below. A particular interest of the P.I. is the application of COSMIC in central control station display systems. The concept is that of a display that will show a system operator the status and potentials of a q uasi

- automatic operating system that requires human monitoring and real

- time decision

- making. Hardware might involve "video wall" technology with multiple display screens with animated flows and color

- coding, and instrumentation interfaces for inputing an d outputing. Included in this

class are:

1.) Building environmental and security systems;

2.) Transportation and communication systems;

3.) Organizational management;

4.) Maintenance and Test operations;

5 .) Vehicle control, such as aircraft, ships, etc.;

6.) Tactical and strategic situations;

7.) Political systems.**21**

**3. Standard.** A draft standard is shown below.

**Draft Standard**

C omputerized Operational System Modelling for Integrated Control

for Workable Intelligent Systems Development, Operation, and Maintenance

" C O S M I C W I S D O M"

**0. PURPOSE:** This st andard is intended to describe assumptions and standards for COSMIC WISDOM. Users are encouraged to make their models available to all concerned. Safety Analysis Systems shall act as SYStem OPerator, SYSOP, for COSMIC interchange and repository.

**1. ASSUMPTIONS:** It is assumed the system operator is competent in using the hardware and the software as a system. 1.1. HARDWARE: A computer workstation with the following hardware: 1.1.1. All equipment shall meet or exceed national consens us safety and health standards for electrical/electromagnetic operation. 1.1.2. Stations shall consider ergonomics in operation, including seating, duty periods (1:20 on/:20 off), and illumination.

1.1. 3. A monitor, a printer, and data storage media; 1.1.4. A floppy disk drive of at least 128 Kb capacity; 1.1.5. Random Access memory of at least 128 Kb is desirable. 1.1.6. Communications capability is desirable.

1.2. SOFTWAR E: The COSMIC operation assumes the following common program software with display, printing, and save and retrieve capability. Software shall be compatible with USASCII standard.

2.1. Text word processing for common reading and w riting; 2.2. Database for repetitive entries and logs ( See Plate 5.); 2.3. Spreadsheet program as described in D> Technical Objectives.

**2. STANDARDS:** COSMIC models shall conform to the following guidance. 2.1. Specifications shall be maintained in a Legend file, either in the model (preferably in the leftmost column) or separately filed, (enter location of legend in A1) with the following information:

2.1.1. The date when the COSMIC was saved;

2. 1.2. The name and address/phone number of the analyst;

2.1.4. The end cell row

- column identifier;
2.1.5. The line items concerned as in Plate 21; 2.1.6. The numerical or statistical accuracy of the model.

2.1.7. Related spreadsheets for aggregation or distribution.

2.2. The on

- going entities shall be described in a contiguous group of cells, either BOBs, NOBs, or both. (See Plates 5, 6, and 9.).
2.3. Initial state of entities shall be described in the lef tmost column.
2.3.1. The flow of action shall be from left

- hand to right

- hand. 2.3.2. Cells to right shall be reserved for changes in the entity. 2.3.3. The rightmost BOB shall be for the final (objective) state.

2.3.4. Upper rows are for controlling items, lower for controllees;
2.4. Tolerance build

- up shall be considered for accuracy. 2.5. Space (blank column/row) between BOB/NOBs shall be a minimum of:
2.5.1. One character when the BOB is marked with a border; or 2.5.2. Three spaces when not marked by a border; or2.5.3. Five spaces when a connector line mark is included. 2.6. If "PMOST" is used, then the factors shall be defined as in Plate 6.

22

**H. POTENT IAL POST APPLICATIONS** 

The COSMIC proposal may be published as a guide. The method might be used in educational instruction and applied to the following areas.

**1. Modules in Libraries.** As COSMICs are developed, they may be viewed

as modules that may be interchanged and synthesized, adapted and adopted,
in a manner similar to "shareware" on electronic bulletin boards and forums. The information system might evolve into an encyclopaedic reference system. There will be a need for langu age translation.

**2. Auditing and History.** These might be enhanced by the modelling of high importance activities at any level of complexity for lessons learned. This might include aggregating mishap reports from the myriad of government and i ndustry agencies and assimilating them for planning.

**3. Health Maintenance.** As reflected in "The Oregon Plan" may be considered, including psychoneurobiology, parapsychology, and psychical sciences. This might also include biological, psychologic al, and genetic, neurological subsystems, interacting with nature and society.

**4. Insurance.** The insurance industry, per se, would likely benefit, as would

those who elect to self

- insure. As an example, buyers may wish to have a safety analy sis and legal verdicts for products for buying decisions.

**5. Arms/HAZMAT/RAD Proliferation Control.** Tracking of arms, hazardous materials or emitters or advanced technologies might be enhanced.

**6. GUEST.** Globally Unified Environmental Safety Teams

- GUESTs on Earth may develop and use definitive models of ecosystems.

**7. Integration of Large Systems.** COSMIC technology might provide for better integration of large systems, including: a. Educational curricula, with follow

- through to em ployment and thence to occupational and professional career paths; b. Employee "Position Descriptions" as "Process Prescriptions" for government in civil service, military, and collective bargaining.

**8. Human Relations.** Some co rporations, including political entities, have questionable means of describing their organization and operation to their

tax

- paying citizens. They might benefit from using COSMIC for communicating with voting and non

- voting citizens and stock

- holders.

**9. Specifications and Standards.** Both governmental and industrial, the problems mentioned above are seen as a call for review. The 35,000 specifications and standards might be easier to work with if they were COSMICs for identifying definitive processes, interdependencies and quality measures. The ISO 9000 standards seem to be a fertile area,

---- since they call for process controls that m ay be described with COSMICs.

**10. U. S. Code of Federal Regulations.** This might b e considered for review to see how the directives are actually implemented and the value added or cost avoided via aggregation with LIMFACs. This might include providing citizens a COSMIC of the laws they are subject to.23

**| |Line|**  **Dewey #s| SIC #s |Item| B u d g e t / P l a n L i n e I t e m s _________|________|_#s_|_________________________________________________**  **00 | | 42 | Knowledge, cybern etics, systems, controversial**  **01,03,&93| | 41 | History & Forecast, Biblios, Encyclopedia 40 | | 40 | Language & Linguistics**  **32 | 91**

**- 97 | 39 | Political Science, Government, Citizenry**  **02 | 82 | 38 | Libraries & information science & Museums | | 37 | Employee, Co** 

**- Worker, Boss, Manager**  **10 | | 36 | Philosophy, metaphysics, ontology, cosmology 13 | 80 | 35**  **| Paranormal, parapsychologists 15,16,17 | 80 | 34 | Psychology, Logic, & Ethics**  **50,52,53 | 89 | 33 | Pure Science Mathematics, Astronomy, & Physics 54,62,66 | 51 | 32 | Chemistry, Materials, & F**  **uels 62 | 87 | 31 | Technology & Engineering (Safety cons.8742** 

**- 08)**  **| 64 | 30 | Accidents & Mortuary Affairs & Insurance 60 | 80 | 29 | Health & medicine**  **20 | 86 | 28 | Religion & Churches, Ideology Group Member 36 | 81 | 27 | Law & Administration**  **34 | 92 | 26 | Crime, Enforcement, & Corrections 33 | 87 | 25 | Econo**  **mics & Business Management (Save/Invest) 30 | 83 | 24 | Sociology, services, SIGs, statistics**  **37 | 82 | 23 | Education & Training 73 | 84** 

**- 86 | 22 | Arts, performing & Entertaining**  **80 | 84**

**- 86 | 21 | Literature, poetry, music , graphic arts**  **79,91,99 | 27&79 | 20 | Recreation, Sports, & Travel**

**- psychic mediums**  **65 | 67 | 19 | Management & auxiliary services & Insurance 38 |**  **52 | 18 | Trade and Sales 38,33,65 | 48** 

**- 49 | 17 | Communications & Utilities**  **07,09 | 27 | 16 | Journalism, periodicals, manuscripts 67 | 20** 

**- 39 | 15 | Manufacturing**  **, Refining, & Maintenance 38 | 40 | 14 | Transportation & Distribution**  **72,69,62 | 15 | 13 | Architecture, Building, Construction & Housing 06 | 84 | 12 | General Organizations, Friends/Antagonist**  **s 39 | | 11 | Customs & folklore (Diet, Dance, Dialect)**  **38 | 72 | 10 | Personal Services (Grooming, Cleaning) 64 | | 9 | Home & Family (Parent, Sibling, Son/Daughter)**  **| | 8 | Personal/Pair Genetic Improvement & Survival**  **30,57,92 | | 7 | Life Sciences, Anthropology, & Geneaology**

**58 & 59 | | 6 | Botanical, & Zoological Sciences 63 | 01 | 5 | Agriculture & Livesto**  **ck 63 | 09 | 4 | Trapping, Hunting, & Fishing**  **62 | 14 | 3 | Mining & Energy Extraction 55 & 90 | 27,89 | 2 | Earth sciences, Geography, & Disasters**  **50 | | 1 | Inertia, Gravity, & Radiation**

**Plate 22**

**- Very Large Systems** **11. Very Large Systems.** See Plate 22. For National/Global Planning, line items

are shown as a hierarc hy. "Dewey" is for (Melvil) Dewey Decimal Codes; "SIC" is
Standard Industrial Classification codes.

**24 12. Personal Life Planning with COSMIC.**  Persons and families may use the COSMIC system for planning, modelling, and recording their activities.

**Col. B D F H J L Youth Mating and Middle Age M**  **ellowing Retirement**

**Social Life Phase**

**- > School Acquisition SocialClimb Leadership Advising** 
**Approx.Phys.Age**

**-- >> 8** 

**- 24 24** 

**- 40 40** 

**- 56 56** 

**- 72 72** 

**- 88** 

**_________________________________ _____________________________________________________________** 

**Highest Potential**

**--- > > > A display of 4' tall ( 3' to 7' high),** 

**Core Personality**

**---- > > > and 20' wide would accomodate about** 

**Religious/Ideology**

**-- > > > 30 elements in "MOST" format.** 

**______________________________________________________________________________________________**

**National Member**

**----- >**  **> >**

**Regional/State Mbr**

**-- > > > Allowing 40** 

**- character NOB's @ 12 c**  **.p.i.,**

**Diplomat**

**- Leader** 

**----- > > > this would allow 72 phases or years.** 

**__________________________________________________ ____________________________________________**  **Professional Mbr**

**---- > > >**  **The aggregated COSMIC for a person's**
**Business Offi cer**  **---- > >**  **or a family's system may be set up**

**Worker/Co**

**- Worker** 

**---- > >**  **from the viewpoint of functional roles**

**Consumer**

**------------ > >**  **that are to be fulfilled in phases.**

**Student**

**- Apprentice** 

**-- > >**  **Phases may be analyzed in quarters,**

**Commu nity Leader** 

**---- > >**  **weeks, or however desired. Budgets Community Member** 

**---- > >**  **may be included. Key questions are:**
**Friend (Same Sex)**

**--- > >**  **Where do you want to be twenty years from now? Friend (Opp. Sex)** 

**--- > >**  **What are you planning NOW to achieve these goals?**
**Adversary**

**- Competitor>**  **>**

**______________________________________________________________________________________________**

**EXTENDED FAMILY:**

**--- > >** 

**Grandparent:**

**-------- > >** 

**Parent:**

**------------- > >** 

**Spouse or Mate**

**------ > >** 

**Son/Daughter**

**-------- > >** 

**______________________________________________________________________________________________**

**Plate 23 Preliminary**  **COSMIC for Personal Life Planning for Expected Service Life**25

**I. KEY PERSONNEL.**

The P.I. was a participant in recent organizing of the Aeronautical Systems Division and Wright

- Patterson AFB Environm ental Protection Committees and participating in the DoD Tri

- Service System Safety Panel on Laser Safety. Participated in Operational Improvement Task Force for the City of Dayton. The P.I. has participated in approximately 1,000 R & D projects, inclu ding several programs that were the first of their kind, such as: first military communications satellite; first long

- endurance drone aircraft; first flight operation of a chemical laser.

See **WHO'S WHO IN SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING/ THE MIDWEST.**

**1. Profe ssional Background:** 

- Military reserve duty in Naval Air Reserve as aircraft mechanic;

- Command Pilot as Instructor & Transport Pilot and Forward Air Controller.

- Military active duty in the Air Force Systems Command; assigned to:

-- Space Systems Divi sion Communications Satellite Test and Deployment;

-- AFSC Inspector General Safety Office;

-- Aeronautical Systems Division

--- Reconn/E.W. Office for Safety, Reliability, and Quality Assurance;

--- Deputy for Engineering Group Leader for Sy stem Safety Engineering.

- One

- year hiatus from Federal work; employed with major aerospace firms as Senior Systems Engineer in Research & Development on Aquila reconnaissance

drone and XV

- 15 tilt

- rotor aircraft.

- Department of Air Force Safety Engineer :

-- Lead System Safety Engineer with 4950th Test Wing;

-- Wright Laboratory; Chief of the Safety Division. Developed and implemented, over a five

- year timeframe, an integrated occupational safety & health, system safety, & environme ntal protection program.

**2. Education:**

- B.Sc., Aeronautical & Astronautical Engineering, University of Michigan;

- M.A., Industrial Management & Supervision, Central Michigan University;

- Professional Military Education through Air War College.

**3. Awar ds and Certifications:** 

- Commendation Medals for "acquisition of safer systems at lower costs";

- Assisted Wright Laboratory attaining three National Safety Council Awards;

- Registered Professional Engineer in Ohio;

**4. Professional Memberships:**

- System Safety Society (Senior Member).

- International Test and Evaluation Association.

- American Society for Safety Engineers.

- Engineers Club of Dayton.

**5. Patents:**

- display systems (24

- hour clock dials); and

- multi

- mode vehicles (aircar/autoplane) and fli ght controls.

**6. Papers:**

- Master's thesis on management of safety;- Air War College technical report on personal computers for management;

- System Safety Society papers on trade

- offs for life cycle cost;

- System Safety Society papers on personal compu ters for safety management.

**7. Other:** CEO/Editor of educational & scientific research organization 17 years involving the psychical sciences and parapsychology.